Saif Ali Khan’s 16 acre Nayapura land safe as Bhopal court upholds erstwhile city royals’ ownership | Bhopal News

Saif ali khan.jpg


Saif Ali Khan’s 16 acre Nayapura land safe as Bhopal court upholds erstwhile city royals’ ownership

BHOPAL: A local court in Bhopal dismissed a civil suit challenging ownership of a 16.62-acre parcel of prime land once linked to erstwhile royal family, ruling in favour of actor Saif Ali Khan, Sharmila Tagore, Soha Ali Khan and other legal heirs of the royal family, who were respondents in the case.The dispute related to land in the Nayapura area of Huzur tehsil, where three residents claimed ownership. They argued that the property was gifted to their father, the late Vakil Ahmed, by the last ruling Nawab of Bhopal, Hamidullah Khan, in 1936 as a reward for services rendered by him and his ancestors during the princely era. The plaintiffs relied on entries in old revenue records and claimed continuous possession of the land, including construction of rooms, engagement of caretakers and allotment of small portions to others for residence and upkeep.

Bhopal Headlines Today — The Biggest Updates You Need to Know.

However, the court rejected the claims on multiple grounds. It held that the plaintiffs failed to conclusively prove the alleged inayat (gift) by Nawab Hamidullah Khan. The court also found that the disputed land formed part of the personal property of Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi as mentioned in the Bhopal merger agreement signed with the govt of India in 1949.Court records showed that following a family partition, 12.62 acres of the land were sold to a builder in 1998 by Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi and his family, a transaction that preceded the filing of the present suit. The court observed that the plaintiffs could not establish lawful possession or ownership of land to seek permanent injunction against the defendants.The court of additional district and sessions judge Sanjay Agarwal said the plaintiffs had “completely failed” to prove their claim for a permanent injunction to prevent interference by the respondents on the land while rejecting the plaint of Vakil Ahma’s sons.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *