Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead while addressing a 100,000-strong rally in Rawalpindi in 1951.

Muzaffarnagar:

In western Uttar Pradesh, the district of Muzaffarnagar is at the centre of a property dispute that stretches back to the tumultuous years of the Partition. The property in question, a mosque and four shops located near the Muzaffarnagar railway station has recently been declared “enemy property” following an investigation. The ownership of the land traces its roots to the family of Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, with claims that it was illegally occupied after the Partition in 1947.

The dispute has triggered debates over the legitimacy of its ownership, with one faction claiming the land belongs to the Waqf Board, while another argues it is a product of unlawful encroachment. 

Historical Backdrop

The property dispute can be traced back to 1918 when the land was first occupied by Rustam Ali Khan, the father of Liaquat Ali Khan. Liaquat Ali Khan was born in Haryana’s Karnal and was the second son of Rustam Ali Khan and his wife Mahmoodah Begum, the daughter of Nawab Quaher Ali Khan UP’s Saharanpur.

He had a deep connection with Muzaffarnagar, where he campaigned successfully for the United Provinces Legislative Council in 1926. His association with the region was not just political but also familial, as his extended family lived in the area for decades.

In 1932, Liaquat Ali Khan was elected Deputy President of the United Provinces Legislative Council and continued his political career until his elevation to the Central Legislative Assembly in 1940. The Khan family’s political influence in the region was substantial, and their holdings in Muzaffarnagar were significant, spanning several properties, including the one in question. However, after the Partition of India in 1947, the fate of these properties changed dramatically.

Liaquat Ali Khan with his wife and children, June, 1947.
Photo Credit: Getty

Liaquat Ali Khan’s migration to Pakistan turned his Indian properties into “enemy properties,” a designation under Indian law that applies to the assets of individuals who left the country for Pakistan after the Partition. In the years following his migration, his family’s assets in India became a point of contention.

Liaquat Ali Khan was shot twice in the chest while addressing a 100,000-strong rally in Rawalpindi in 1951. His assassin, Said Akbar Khan, was fatally shot by Pakistani security forces seconds later.

The Mosque And Shops

The controversy surrounding the land escalated when a mosque was constructed on the property in question, situated directly across from the Muzaffarnagar railway station. Sanjay Arora, the convener of a group called the Rashtriya Hindu Shakti Sangathan, brought attention to the construction in 2023, alleging that the mosque and shops were built illegally on enemy property. Mr Arora argued that the mosque, which he claimed was “constructed like a hotel”, did not adhere to the legal regulations governing construction in the area, as it had not received approval from the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority (MDA).

“There are no documents for this property with the Waqf Board,” Mr Arora claimed. “When an individual has moved to Pakistan, their land is either illegal property or enemy property.” 

The mosque and the shops in question.

Mr Arora, without providing any evidence to back his claim, made further allegations that the property and the mosque that it hosts are a “threat to national security”. 

His complaint to the district administration led to a multi-tiered investigation by local authorities, which included representatives from the Muzaffarnagar District Magistrate’s Office, the Revenue Department, and the Municipal Corporation. The investigation was escalated when it was referred to the Enemy Property Office in Delhi, where a team was dispatched to survey the land.

Sanjay Arora, the convener of the Rashtriya Hindu Shakti Sangathan.

The exact worth of the property has not been calculated yet. 

The Enemy Property Act

The Enemy Property Act, 1968, governs the appropriation of properties in India belonging to Pakistani nationals. Introduced in the aftermath of the India-Pakistan War of 1965, the Act transfers ownership of such properties to the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, a designated government authority.

According to the Enemy Property Agency, the land in question had indeed been declared enemy property. The property was found to be under the ownership of Rustam Ali Khan, Liaquat Ali Khan’s father, who had left India for Pakistan after the Partition. 

In response to these findings, the government moved to issue a legal notice to the occupants of the land, directing them to vacate the premises. 

The Counter-Claim

Despite the declaration of the land as enemy property, there remains a counter-narrative. Those occupying the mosque and the shops argue that the land was legally waqf (a form of Islamic endowment), which means it was donated for religious purposes. According to the individuals on the Muslim side of the dispute, the property had been registered with the Waqf Board, and they have submitted documentation to that effect, including a letter from 1937 to bolster their claims.

One of the key figures defending the status of the property as waqf is Mohammad Athar, a local businessman who runs a shop on the land. He insists that the property belonged to Rustam Ali Khan, who had endowed it to the Waqf. Mr Athar dismissed the claim that the land belongs to Liaquat Ali Khan and claimed that political motivations and misinformation are driving the entire dispute.

Mohammad Athar, a local businessman who runs a shop on the land.

“The land did not belong to Liaquat Ali Khan but his father Rustam Ali Khan who donated the land to waqf,” Mr Athar claimed. “The mosque at this property has existed before the partition of the country. We have presented all the evidence to prove this, and we hope the government rethinks its decision and deliberates on the matter once again as the livelihoods of several families depend on it.”

The claimants argue that the mosque, which has existed for decades, was not built in violation of any law and that the rent collected from the shops is legitimate. They maintain that the designation of the land as enemy property is an incorrect claim based on misinterpretation of historical records. 

Legal Ramifications

The legal complexities surrounding the ownership of enemy property are not unique to Muzaffarnagar. Across India, several properties previously owned by individuals who migrated to Pakistan after the Partition have been caught in similar disputes.

In a landmark case, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the property of Mohammed Amir Mohammed Khan, the erstwhile Raja of UP’s Mehmoodabad, was classified as enemy property. The Supreme Court ruled on the ownership of valuable properties in Sitapur and Lucknow, which were controlled by the state government. These properties were valued at no less than Rs 3,000 crore.