Last Updated:
Saif Ali Khan’s claim to sprawling Bhopal properties—passed down from the city’s last Begum—now faces a retrial. Here’s the back‑story, the court order and property laws in India
The High Court has now directed the trial court to restart the proceedings from scratch (Photo Credits: Instagram)
Actor Saif Ali Khan could be in for fresh legal trouble after the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a local court’s order that makes him, his sisters and mother heirs of properties worth thousands of crores in Bhopal.
The June 30 order of a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi asked the lower court to decide the matter afresh expeditiously, preferably within a year.
It should be noted that the present case is separate from the Enemy Properties case, which Saif is fighting over these properties.
What do we know about Saif’s fresh legal trouble, Pataudi family’s connection to Bhopal’s rulers, and what are the property rights in India? Let’s explore.
What’s The Bhopal Property Dispute?
The dispute centres on the vast estate of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, the last ruling Nawab of Bhopal (1926–1949), which includes iconic properties like Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, Flag Staff House, Ahmedabad Palace, and over 7,000 acres of land in Bhopal and Raisen.
Valued at Rs 15,000 crore, these assets encompass palaces, farms, and forests, making it one of India’s most significant royal inheritance battles.
The case involves two major issues: a family dispute over succession rights under Muslim Personal Law and a government claim under the Enemy Property Act, triggered by the migration of one heir to Pakistan post-Partition.
Nawab Hamidullah Khan, who signed the Instrument of Accession merging Bhopal with India in 1949, had three daughters with his first wife, Maimoona Sultan: Abida Sultan, Sajida Sultan, and Rabia Sultan.
After his death in 1960, the succession of his personal properties—distinct from state assets—became contentious. A 1962 Government of India certificate recognised Sajida Sultan as the sole successor, citing the Bhopal Merger Agreement of 1949 and Article 366(22) of the Constitution.
Sajida, married to Nawab Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi, passed the inheritance to her son, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, and subsequently to his children—Saif, Soha, and Saba Ali Khan, and their mother, Sharmila Tagore.
However, other heirs, including descendants of Hamidullah Khan and his elder brother Obaidullah Khan, challenged this, arguing for partition under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1937, which was applicable at the time of the Nawab’s death. Additionally, the government’s 2014 notice under the Enemy Property Act labelled these properties as “enemy property” due to Abida Sultan’s migration to Pakistan, complicating the family’s claim.
What Are The Estates At Stake And Their Estimated Value?
| Property | Location | Estimated Value (Rs) | Current Status |
| Koriyakothi Palace | Bhopal old city | 2,800 crore | Govt office + vacant wings |
| Manzil Manzil gardens | Raisen | 1,500 crore | Leased farmland |
| Dozens of residential plots & havelis | Bhopal Cantonment | 7,000 crore | Many occupied by tenants |
| Commercial blocks on VIP Road | Bhopal lakefront | 3,700 crore | Rented to shops, hotels |
What To Interpret Of MP Court’s Latest Order?
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered a fresh trial, directing the district court to conclude proceedings within one year, citing errors in the earlier judgment. The 2000 ruling had relied on a now-overruled Allahabad High Court precedent in the Talat Fatima Hasan case, which the Supreme Court struck down in 2020, affirming that royal personal properties must follow personal succession laws, not throne succession.
The appellants, including Begum Suraiya Rashid and Nawab Mehr Taj Sajida Sultan, argued that the trial court wrongly assumed the Nawab’s private properties were tied to the throne, automatically passing to Sajida Sultan as the designated successor. They contended that under Muslim Personal Law, the estate should be divided among all heirs, including 16 others, not solely the Pataudi family. Justice Dwivedi agreed, noting the trial court’s failure to consider alternative aspects and allowed parties to submit further evidence.
Simultaneously, the court addressed the Enemy Property Act issue. In December 2024, the High Court lifted a 2015 stay on a 2014 Custodian of Enemy Property notice that classified the properties as “enemy property” due to Abida Sultan’s migration to Pakistan in 1950.
The court gave Saif’s family 30 days to appeal to the appellate authority under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, but no appeal was filed within the deadline, empowering the Bhopal district administration to begin acquisition.
What’s The Enemy Properties Case?
The Enemy Property Act, 1968, was enacted post the Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971 and the Sino-Indian War of 1962 to manage assets left behind by individuals who migrated to “enemy” nations, primarily Pakistan and China. It defines “enemy property” as movable or immovable assets owned by those who took citizenship of an enemy nation or acted against India’s interests.
The Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI), under the Ministry of Home Affairs, administers these assets, which include 13,252 properties nationwide, valued over Rs 1 lakh crore, with Uttar Pradesh (5,688) and West Bengal (4,354) holding the most, as per a Hindustan Times report.
The 2017 Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act expanded the definition of “enemy subject” to include legal heirs, regardless of their citizenship, ensuring properties remain with the CEPI even after the original owner’s death.
Proceeds from sales go to the Consolidated Fund of India, prioritising national security over individual claims. Critics argue the Act infringes on property rights, while supporters stress its role in preventing foreign control of Indian assets.
What Are Muslim Personal Law And Property Rights In India?
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1937, governs inheritance for Muslims in India, applicable at Hamidullah Khan’s death in 1960. Under Hanafi law, followed by most Indian Muslims, property is divided among heirs based on fixed shares:
Daughters: Each daughter (e.g., Abida, Sajida, Rabia) receives one share if there are no sons.
Brothers/Nephews: In the absence of sons, brothers or their descendants (e.g., Obaidullah Khan’s heirs) receive two-thirds, daughters one-third.
Wives: A widow (e.g., Maimoona Sultan) gets one-eighth if there are children.
The appellants argue that Hamidullah’s estate should be divided among his three daughters and Obaidullah’s heirs, not solely Sajida’s line. The 1962 certificate naming Sajida as sole heir relied on the Bhopal Merger Agreement, but the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling clarified that personal properties follow Shariat, not throne succession.
The Enemy Property Act overrides Shariat if properties are deemed “enemy property,” nullifying inheritance rights for all heirs, even Indian citizens. This creates a dual challenge for Saif’s family: proving Sajida’s exclusive rights under Shariat and contesting the CEPI’s claim.
Shilpy Bisht, Deputy News Editor at News18, writes and edits national, world and business stories. She started off as a print journalist, and then transitioned to online, in her 12 years of experience. Her prev…Read More
Shilpy Bisht, Deputy News Editor at News18, writes and edits national, world and business stories. She started off as a print journalist, and then transitioned to online, in her 12 years of experience. Her prev… Read More
- First Published:
