Dubai: In a dramatic development tied to the historical legacies of Partition and India's princely past, Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan—who hails from the royal lineages of the Pataudi and Bhopal families—has lost legal rights to ancestral properties valued at Rs150 billion.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently declared that these properties fall under the category of ‘Enemy Property’, delivering a significant legal and emotional setback to one of India’s most high-profile royal-turned-celebrity families.
This ruling nullifies a 1999 verdict and has reignited complex questions surrounding inheritance laws, ownership of post-Partition assets, and what it truly means to be a royal in contemporary India.
What is ‘Enemy Property’?
‘Enemy Property’ refers to assets abandoned by individuals who migrated to Pakistan or China following the 1947 Partition or during subsequent conflicts and subsequently acquired citizenship in those countries. These properties fall under the purview of the Enemy Property Act, which grants the Indian government the authority to take control of such properties and prevents descendants from making legal ownership claims.
How does this impact Saif Ali Khan?
Saif’s great-grandmother, Sajida Sultan, was the last ruling Begum of Bhopal. Her brother migrated to Pakistan post-Partition and became a Pakistani national. This familial link, even though Sajida herself remained in India, has led the court to classify the ancestral assets as "enemy property."
This judgment overturns a 1999 ruling that had validated Sajida Sultan’s rights to these estates.
What are the properties involved?
The contested properties—located across Madhya Pradesh and possibly other areas—are said to be worth Rs150 billion. Though comprehensive details remain undisclosed, the properties include landholdings and estates inherited through the royal families of Bhopal and Pataudi.
What about the Pataudi Palace?
The Pataudi Palace in Haryana often draws significant attention. Saif has dismissed claims that he had to “buy it back” from a hotel chain. In a past interview, he clarified that the palace was never sold—it had been leased to Neemrana Hotels by his father, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, and was reclaimed by the family following his father's death in 2011.
“It’s impossible to assign it a financial value. Emotionally, it’s beyond price,” Saif once remarked, labeling media reports about the palace’s valuation as vastly overstated.
What are the implications of this ruling?
The court’s decision places these ancestral assets under the jurisdiction of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, a government body responsible for managing such properties. Unless Saif and his family appeal to the Supreme Court and successfully reverse the decision, they will have no legal ownership over the properties.
Why is this significant?
This case illustrates the enduring consequences of migrations that occurred during Partition, continuing to influence families across generations—especially those with royal heritage. It brings renewed focus to the Enemy Property Act and highlights how choices made regarding citizenship more than 75 years ago still have deep implications on inheritance and identity in today’s India.