As legal battles over these properties persist, the auction of Musharraf’s ancestral land serves as a reminder of the complex and often painful history that underpins the law
By Iftikhar Gilani
The recent auction of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s ancestral land in Kotana village, Baghpat district in the Indian province of Uttar Pradesh, has reignited the long-standing debate over India’s Enemy Property Act.
Valued at ₹1.38 crore, the auction of the land, classified as enemy property after Musharraf’s family migrated to Pakistan following the Partition of 1947, has sparked renewed interest in the legal and emotional ramifications of this contentious legislation.
India’s Enemy Property Act was introduced in 1968 in response to the conflicts with Pakistan and China. Its purpose was to regulate the properties and assets left behind by nationals of enemy countries during times of war.
These properties were seized by the government and placed under the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property, an office created specifically to manage such assets.
During and after the Indo-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971, as well as the Sino-Indian war of 1962, many individuals who had migrated to Pakistan or China were declared enemy nationals.
Their properties, ranging from land and buildings to business shares, gold, and jewellery, were seized by the Indian government and classified as enemy property.
This legislation mirrored practices seen in other nations during wartime. For instance, during both World Wars, countries like the United States and the United Kingdom also seized properties belonging to nationals of enemy nations.
The Enemy Property Act in India, however, has a far longer and more complex legacy than similar laws abroad. While Pakistan resolved the issue on its side by selling off properties left by Indian nationals in 1971, India continues to grapple with the legacy of enemy properties decades later.
As of today, India controls nearly 9,500 enemy properties, most belonging to Pakistani nationals or their descendants.
These properties are valued at a staggering ₹1,04,339 crore. Despite this, the issue remains unresolved, as legal battles over inheritance rights and ownership disputes persist, making the Enemy Property Act one of the most litigated and contentious laws in India.
The auction of Pervez Musharraf’s family land in August 2024 brought this decades-old issue back into the spotlight. Musharraf, who was born in Delhi in 1943, hailed from a family that had deep roots in Kotana village, Baghpat district.
His family migrated to Pakistan in 1947, leaving behind several properties, including a haveli in Kotana and other landholdings.
Over the years, some of these properties were sold to local buyers, but the eight-acre plot auctioned recently had been declared enemy property and was taken over by the government.
The auction, which was conducted online, saw the land fetch ₹1.38 crore—well above the base price of ₹39 lakh.
The funds from the sale will now be deposited with the Custodian of Enemy Property, as per the law.
While the buyers remain unnamed, the sale has brought to the fore the human element behind enemy property disputes—how individuals and families are affected by the Act, which was originally intended to address national security concerns but has since evolved into a source of protracted legal and emotional conflicts.
Complex Legal Disputes
The Enemy Property Act was accompanied by the complex legal disputes that would arise over the years. Many descendants of enemy nationals have argued that they should have the right to inherit these properties, leading to a slew of court cases that have often dragged on for decades.
One of the most high-profile cases involves Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan, popularly known as Raja Mahmudabad. His family’s properties were seized after his father chose Pakistani citizenship in 1950.
Despite the fact that Khan himself returned to India in 1953 and retained Indian citizenship, the Indian government classified his family’s properties as enemy assets. Khan’s legal battle to reclaim these properties spanned decades, with the Supreme Court finally ruling in his favour in 2005.
The court recognized that while enemy properties were under the Custodian’s control, the original owners—or their legal heirs—could still lay claim to them.
However, the government’s response to the ruling was swift. In 2016, it passed the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill, which reversed the Supreme Court’s decision.
The amendments made it clear that enemy properties would permanently vest in the Custodian, stripping legal heirs of any rights to inheritance.
The amendments also broadened the definition of “enemy” to include not just the original enemy national, but also their descendants—effectively barring families like Khan’s from reclaiming their ancestral assets.
Khan continued to fight the government’s amendments until his death in 2023, but the case remains unresolved. His story is emblematic of the long and bitter struggle faced by many families whose properties were confiscated under the Enemy Property Act.
The amended law has left many families in legal limbo, unable to recover what they see as their rightful inheritance, and it has also raised questions about property rights and the role of the government in adjudicating such matters.
The 2016 amendments to the Enemy Property Act have drawn significant criticism from legal experts and human rights activists. One of the primary concerns is that the amendments violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Critics argue that by retroactively changing the rules governing enemy properties, the government has acted in an arbitrary and unfair manner, depriving citizens of their property rights without due process.
Moreover, the amendments have severely limited judicial recourse for those affected. Under the new law, disputes related to enemy properties can only be heard in the High Courts or the Supreme Court, effectively shutting out civil courts from adjudicating these matters.
This has made it much more difficult for individuals to challenge the government’s actions, as access to higher courts is often costly and time-consuming.
The law has also raised concerns about the rights of Indian citizens who legally purchased enemy properties before the amendments were enacted. Many of these individuals now stand to lose their investments, as the new law renders previous sales of enemy properties void.
This has left a number of legal property owners in a precarious position, as they must now navigate a complex legal landscape to protect their assets.
-Musharraf’s Ties
Pervez Musharraf’s own ties to India are a poignant reminder of the human cost of the Enemy Property Act. Despite his role as a key figure in Pakistan’s military and political establishment, Musharraf had deep personal connections to India.
His family lived in Delhi and Baghpat before Partition, and his grandfather and other relatives are buried in the Chishti Pahlwan graveyard in Meerut.
Musharraf had expressed a desire to visit his ancestors’ graves in 2005, but due to security reasons, the Indian government did not oblige.
The emotional toll of the Partition, coupled with the legal complexities of the Enemy Property Act, has left many families—both in India and Pakistan—feeling disconnected from their roots.
The auction of Musharraf’s ancestral land highlights the unresolved legacy of this law, and how it continues to affect families caught in the geopolitical rift between the two nations.
The auction of Musharraf’s land is just one of many similar cases. With nearly 9,500 enemy properties still under the control of the Custodian, the issue remains far from resolved.
As more properties come up for auction, the legal and emotional stakes continue to rise, with descendants of enemy nationals still fighting for what they believe is their rightful inheritance.
The Enemy Property Act, initially intended as a temporary measure during times of conflict, has now become a source of long-lasting tension.
As legal battles over these properties persist, the auction of Musharraf’s ancestral land serves as a reminder of the complex and often painful history that underpins the law.
It also underscores the importance of balancing national security concerns with individual rights—a challenge that India continues to grapple with as it navigates the legacy of its wartime policies.
#####
