Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the government’s decision declaring the Nawab of Bhopal’s properties as enemy property under the , due to the movement of Princess Abida Sultan to Pakistan, a single-judge bench of Vivek Agarwal, J., issued the interim relief to the petitioners by maintaining the status quo while directing them to pursue the statutory remedy before the appellant authority.
In the instant matter, the petitioners, the Pataudi family filed a petition challenging the government’s decision to take control of the properties belonging to the last Nawab of Bhopal under the . The controversy stems from the Competent Authority of Enemy Property’s (CEPI) declaration of the Nawab’s properties as enemy property as the Nawab’s elder daughter, Princess Abida Sultan, moved to Pakistan in 1950. Upon the Nawab’s death, his second daughter, Mehr Taj Sajida Sultan Begum, was declared the rightful heir to the property, according to the Bhopal Succession to the Throne Act, 1947.
The petitioners contended that they are the legal heirs of Mehr Taj Sajida Sultan Begum, and challenged CEPI’s order, alleging that the impugned order was passed in violation of the Merger Agreement between the Union of India and the then ruler His Highness Late Nawab Hamidullah Khan Bahadur. The petitioners also relied on a Gazette Notification and a Government of India certificate under Article of the and asserted their rights over the property.
The State stated that in 2017, the , was repealed retrospectively and an appellate authority was constituted to adjudicate disputes related to enemy property. The State stated that the statutory provisions of the Enemy Property Act, particularly Section 18 and Section 22-A, deal with the transfer of vested enemy properties and the validation of acts done under the Act.
In light of the statutory remedy available to the petitioners, the Court noted that the petitioners are relegated to avail remedy before the appellate authority to address their grievance. The Court further noted that the issue of limitation in filing a representation before the appellate authority might arise due to the time elapsed since the declaration of enemy property.
Therefore, the Court directed that the status quo regarding the property should be maintained until the next date of hearing, which means that no changes or actions should be taken with respect to the property until further orders.
The Court directed the petitioners to file a representation before the appellate authority within 30 days from the date of the order. The Court directed the appellate authority to not consider the issue of limitation when adjudicating the matter and focus on the merits of the case rather than dismissing it on the grounds of limitation.
[Saif Ali Khan Pataudi v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 4980 of 2015, Decided on 13-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Pushpendra Yadav – Deputy Solicitor General, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
Shri Manas Mani Verma – Government Advocate, Counsel for the State
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .