Bhopal, April 4: Actor Saif Ali Khan's lawyers will try to avert a government takeover of his royal inheritance in Bhopal by arguing the property never belonged to his great-aunt Abida Sultan, who had migrated to Pakistan in 1950.

The Pataudi family's royal properties in Bhopal have come under a cloud following recent amendments to the Enemy Property Act, 1968, through an ordinance issued by the Narendra Modi government.

These amendments make the laws of succession inapplicable to "enemy property" -assets of those who left India to settle in Pakistan after the first military conflict in 1948, or in China after the 1962 war.

If it's proved that any property of Nawab Hamidullah Khan had technically belonged to his eldest daughter Abida before passing to her sister and Saif's grandmother Sajida Sultan, that property could be classified "enemy property" and taken over.

Sources in Saif's legal team told The Telegraph they had evidence that at no time after the accession of Bhopal state to India in April 1949 had Abida owned any royal property in Bhopal.

By convention, Abida would have been the legal heir to Hamidullah, who had no son. Saif's lawyers claim to have found out from government records and official correspondence that none of Hamidullah's properties had been vested in Abida when Bhopal acceded to India.

They said they had also found out that the royal annual allowance for Abida was stopped in 1952, thus proving beyond doubt that she was no longer considered the legal heir to her father.

According to them, when then Union home minister Kailash Nath Katju visited Bhopal on May 1, 1952, V. Shankar, a joint secretary in the Union government, recorded a discussion on the continuation of the Rs 1 lakh allowance.

Hamidullah, who was himself receiving Rs 10 lakh, is said to have requested the continuation of Abida's allowance. In paragraph 5(j) of his report, Shankar observed: "I told Nawab Hamidullah Khan we wished to avoid any untoward scenes."

Hamidullah accepted the government stand, the sources said.

In 1949, Hamidullah gifted a building in Bhopal, the Riyaz Manzil, to his junior begum. The copy of the inayatname (gift certificate) was forwarded in 1956 to then Union home minister G.B. Pant.

Pant directed a joint secretary to verify whether the property had anything to do with Abida. It hadn't, the Bhopal chief commissioner wrote to the home ministry after checking with the collector.

Saif's legal team will also argue that Abida, who died in 2011, had never staked any claim to the royal property in Bhopal.

After Hamidullah died in 1960 and the question of succession arose, President Rajendra Prasad declared Sajida the Begum of Bhopal. The Jawaharlal Nehru cabinet cited the Supreme Court judgment in Umrao Singh vs Bhagwati Singh to declare Sajida the successor to Hamidullah.

She was entitled to privy purses and privileges till they were abolished in 1971. Sajida, wife of Nawab Iftekhar Ali Khan Pataudi and mother of Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, remained an Indian citizen throughout her life.

Enemy properties are vested by the Centre in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The Enemy Property Act of 1968 put no bar on succession, but an ordinance promulgated last January amended it and introduced such a barrier.

A bill to replace the ordinance was passed in the Lok Sabha on March 9 but the Rajya Sabha referred it to a select committee, which is a consultation panel with wide representation from the House. That prompted the Centre to re-promulgate the ordinance, which was set to expire in the first week of April.

Even before the ordinance's issuance, the Mumbai-based Custodian of Enemy Property had sent notices questioning the ownership of the royal properties in Bhopal. Saif had then approached Madhya Pradesh High Court and got a stay.

Sources in Saif's legal team said the assumption of Abida having either movable or immovable properties in Bhopal was a "figment of imagination".

They believe that if the Custodian checks its own records of the successive lists of enemy properties notified by the Union government, it will find no mention of any property in Bhopal that belonged to Abida.

Under the ordinance, "enemy" includes the legal heir or successor to an enemy, even if the heir is an Indian citizen. The ordinance says that enemy property will continue to be vested in the Custodian even if the enemy ceases to be an enemy through death, change of nationality, etc. It adds that the ordinary laws of succession, or any custom governing succession, would not apply to enemy property.