Two days ago, the government auctioned the land of former Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. A few days before that, the government converted Raja Mahmudabad’s property in Uttarakhand into a parking place, and in December last year, the government took possession of the property of Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan (which also included a mosque built in 1918) after a court order.
It was claimed about this land that it was made a waqf even before the country’s independence, which turned out to be a fake claim. In such a situation, despite the mosque being there and the claim of waqf, the government got this land because this land came under the category of enemy property.
If we look at all three cases, there was a common link in them, the existence of enemy property. Now the Government of India can use such properties as per public interests. This is now possible because in the year 2017, the Modi government brought a law, which was introduced in Parliament as Enemy Property (Amendment and Verification) Bill 2016. According to this law, not only the person who has gone to the enemy country, but also the heirs of the person who has gone to the enemy country will come under the category of enemy and they will not be able to make any claim on this enemy property.
With this step of the Modi government, more than 13 thousand properties across the country, valued at more than 1 lakh crore rupees, will now belong to the government. That will be discussed later in this article. For now, let us share with you that in the Waqf Amendment Act brought by the Modi government, even the claims of Waqf on enemy property have been rejected. The effects of such a provision are far-reaching.
By bringing both the laws, the Modi government has done the work that the previous Congress governments have been avoiding due to various reasons. Now that Congress has been mentioned, and in relation to the enemy property, so let us give you an important information which everyone should know. However, before that, let us tell you what enemy property is and how the Modi government brought the law. Notably, Congress-led UPA government had given property worth thousands of crores to the heirs of the enemies of the country by not bringing such a law earlier.
What is enemy property
Enemy properties are those properties which belonged to those people who left India during the India-Pakistan partition of 1947 or after 1962 (war with China), 1965 and 1971 (wars with Pakistan) and took citizenship of Pakistan or China. The Government of India considered them ‘enemies’ because these people went with those countries which were at war against India. The purpose of confiscating such properties was that they should be used for the security and development of the country.
Under the Enemy Property Act 1968, Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI) was created to oversee these properties, which works under the Ministry of Home Affairs. There are 13,252 such properties across the country, out of which 12,485 belong to Pakistani citizens and 126 to Chinese citizens. Their total value is more than Rs 1.04 lakh crore. In this, the maximum properties are in Uttar Pradesh (6,255) and West Bengal (4,088).
For example, Pakistan’s first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan had eight biswa land in Muzaffarnagar, on which a mosque and shops were constructed. Investigation found that it was enemy property. Similarly, properties of Nawab Hamidullah Khan’s daughter Abida Sultan (who had migrated to Pakistan in 1950) in Bhopal – such as the Flag Staff House and Noor-us-Sabah Palace (worth more than Rs 15,000 crore) – were also declared enemy properties. Pervez Musharraf’s 13 bigha land in Baghpat was auctioned for Rs 1.38 crore. All these properties are in the possession of the Government of India, so that they can not be misused.
Conflict between enemy property and Waqf
Now the question is what is the dispute between enemy property and Waqf property. Actually, it happened many times that the Waqf Board tried to take possession of the properties which were enemy properties. The biggest reason for this was loopjholes in the Waqf Acts of 1984 and 1995.
In 1984, the Indira Gandhi government made an amendment to the Waqf Act, under which ‘evacuee property’ (i.e. properties that were left behind during the partition) was allowed to be declared as Waqf. If a property was earlier a Waqf, but later became enemy property, then it could be converted into Waqf again. This means that the properties that belonged to people who left the country could be registered in the name of the Waqf Board.
Modi government amended the law in the year 2017: In 2017, the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act was introduced, which made this law more stringent. This amendment made many important changes-
Expansion of the definition of enemy: Now the heirs of the enemy, even if they are citizens of India, cannot claim these properties.
Ownership of the custodian: The owner of the enemy property is now the custodian (Government of India).
Role of civil court ends: Cases related to enemy property will no longer be heard in civil courts, but in special tribunals.
Permission to sell: The government can now sell such properties, and the money will go to the country’s treasury (Consolidated Fund of India).
The case of Raja Mahmudabad’s properties worth thousands of crores
Raja Mahmudabad, i.e. Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan belonged to a prominent Shia Muslim family. Mahmudabad Estate had huge properties in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. His father Maharaja Sir Mohammad Ali Mohammad Khan left behind huge property after his death in 1931, which included Butler Palace in Lucknow, Mahmudabad Mansion in Hazratganj, Metropole Hotel in Nainital and 956 acres of land in Sitapur, a sugar mill, a polytechnic institute and a degree college.
Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan migrated to Iraq in 1945 and took Pakistani citizenship in 1957. He was the treasurer of the Muslim League and a close associate of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who gave financial and political support to the Pakistan Movement. The interesting thing is that Amir Ahmed Khan had donated all his properties to Pakistan, however, his properties in India were left behind. In such a situation, the Government of India confiscated his properties under the Enemy Property Act 1968.
His son Mohammed Amir Mohammed Khan (also known as Sulaiman Miyan) was an Indian citizen and started a legal battle to get his ancestral properties back in 1974. The battle lasted 37 years, it continued from the district court to Bombay High Court to eventually Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court gave a major verdict, stating that Sulaiman Miyan was an Indian citizen and not an ‘enemy’. The court ordered the return of all his properties, which were estimated to be worth Rs 20,000 to Rs 50,000 crore at the time. These included Lucknow’s Butler Palace, prime real estate in Hazratganj, Mahmudabad Fort and vast lands in Sitapur.
Role of Congress government in the game of returning properties
When the Supreme Court verdict was delivered in 2005, there was a Congress-led UPA government at the centre under the leadership of Dr Manmohan Singh. This verdict put the government in an uncomfortable position because returning such huge properties to a family whose father had supported the Pakistan movement was a sensitive issue for national security and public sentiment. But the UPA government took steps to effectively implement this verdict. On 21 December 2005, the Lucknow district administration handed over the keys of Butler Palace and documents of six other properties to Sulaiman Miyan.
There were many reasons for this action of the Congress government. Among them were:
1- It was legally necessary to implement the Supreme Court’s decision.
2- Sulaiman Miyan himself had been an MLA from Mahmudabad on a Congress ticket in 1985 and 1989, due to which he had a deep relationship with the party.
3- At that time, Congress had a strategy in politics to strengthen the Muslim vote bank.
Many people believe that the Congress was lenient in this matter and the government did not put its side strongly in the Supreme Court, due to which the way was cleared for returning such huge properties of Raja Mahmudabad.
However, there was a lot of controversy after this decision. Many political parties, especially the BJP, called it against national interests. In response to this, the UPA government tried to bring an emergency ordinance in 2010, which said that only the government would have the right over enemy properties. But this ordinance could not be introduced in Parliament as a bill, because there was pressure from within and outside the Congress. Salman Khurshid played an important role in applying this pressure. He had represented Raja Mahmudabad in the Supreme Court case and the very next year, he was appointed as the Law Minister in the UPA government at the Centre.
Salman Khurshid’s behind the scenes role
Senior lawyer and Congress leader Salman Khurshid was the Union Minister of Minority Affairs at the time. He represented Raja Mahmudabad in the Supreme Court as his lawyer. He was faced with eminent lawyers like P. Chidambaram. Arun Jaitley and Ram Jethmalani, who were on the side of the government. Khurshid argued that Sulaiman Miyan was an Indian citizen and could not be considered an ‘enemy’ on the basis of his father’s activities. His arguments played a key role in the 2005 Supreme Court verdict.
Salman Khurshid’s role was not limited to the courtroom. In 2010, when the UPA government tried to bring an ordinance to amend the Enemy Property Act, Khurshid opposed it. He met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and led a group of Muslim MPs, which also included leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mohammad Adeeb. The group argued that the amendment to the Enemy Property Act was ‘anti-Muslim’ and would hurt the sentiments of the Indian Muslim community.
Due to this pressure led by Khurshid, the ordinance was not introduced as a bill in Parliament. Apart from this, there was a provision in the ordinance that the heir of enemy property would have to prove his Indian citizenship within 120 days. But when the bill was prepared, this provision was removed, making claims on enemy properties easier. Many analysts believe that Khurshid used his legal and political influence to create an atmosphere in favor of Raja Mahmudabad and forced the Congress government to take a soft stand in this matter.
There were many reasons behind this, including…
1- Salman Khurshid’s strong influence in Congress and his popularity among the Muslim community.
2- Raja Mahmoodabad’s old relationship with Congress, because Sulaiman Miyan had been a Congress MLA twice.
3- he UPA government’s strategy, in which it wanted to keep the Muslim vote bank happy.
Khurshid’s role in this whole matter can be clearly linked to ‘vote bank politics’, because he linked it to the interests of the Muslim community, even if it had an impact on national security.
Modi government’s Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024, preventing enemy properties from becoming Waqf
The Modi government took several strict steps to prevent enemy properties from becoming Waqf in the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024. The old Waqf Act 1995 had some loopholes, due to which the Waqf Board could arbitrarily declare properties as Waqf. For example, under Section 40, the Board could declare any property as Waqf without concrete evidence and it could only be challenged in the Waqf Tribunal. Due to this, many enemy properties like Liaquat Ali Khan’s land in Muzaffarnagar were stuck under Waqf claim.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 removed these loopholes and prevented enemy properties from becoming Waqf through these important provisions..
Abolition of Section 40: In the old law, Section 40 gave uncontrolled power to the Waqf Board. Now it has been removed, so that the Board cannot declare any property as Waqf without documentary evidence. This has made it almost impossible to claim Waqf on enemy properties. For example – Nawab’s properties in Bhopal which are enemy properties can no longer become Waqf.
Central Waqf Property Portal: This bill has provided for a central portal where the record of all Waqf properties will be maintained in a transparent manner. This will ensure that only properties with valid documents will be considered Waqf. Enemy properties like Liaquat Ali Khan’s land can no longer be claimed in the name of Waqf.
Ban on conversion of enemy property into Waqf: Sections 108 and 108A of the old law which allowed conversion of enemy properties into Waqf have now been abolished. This has ensured that no enemy property can become Waqf. For example – Waqf Board’s claim on 123 acres of land in Vijayapura (Karnataka) was rejected because it was enemy property.
District Collector’s Inquiry: Now the District Collector has the right to inspect Waqf properties. If a property turns out to be an enemy property, the collector can stop it from being declared a Waqf. This provision prevents the arbitrariness of the Waqf Board.
Accountability of Mutawalli: The accountability of Mutawalli (manager of Waqf property) has been increased in the bill. If a Mutawalli does not maintain records or misuses the property, he can be removed. This will stop attempts to declare enemy properties as Waqf in an incorrect manner.
What would have happened if Modi government had not made this provision
If these provisions were not made in the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024, enemy properties could have gone into the possession of the Waqf Board. For example – the properties of Mahmudabad, which were worth more than Rs 50,000 crore, could have gone in the name of Waqf. This would not only cause economic loss but could also pose a threat to national security, because such properties could be misused against the country. Further, the uncontrolled powers of the Waqf Board would have increased further, due to which wrong claims could be made on the properties of common people. For example, the Waqf Board had made claims on 123 acres of land in Vijayapura and several properties in Munambam (Kerala), which were enemy properties.
The Congress-led UPA government played an important role in returning properties worth thousands of crores of rupees to Raja Mahmudabad after the Supreme Court’s decision in 2005. In this process, the role of Salman Khurshid was decisive, who not only strongly presented the case of Sulaiman Miyan in the court, but also led Muslim MPs to put pressure on the government to weaken the ordinance in 2010. But the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 and the Enemy Property (Amendment) Act 2017 took strict steps to prevent such properties from becoming Waqf.
The Modi government has refused to return the properties of Raja Mahmudabad. This matter is pending in the court and now under the existing laws, it seems impossible for them to reach back to the heirs of Raja Mahmudabad. In such a situation, it is clear that these laws brought by the Modi government not only curbed the arbitrariness of the Waqf Board, but also ensured that the enemy properties remain in the hands of the Indian government in the interest of the country. This step of the Modi government not only increases economic and legal transparency, but also strengthens national security.
The original article can be read here.
