New Delhi, May 28, 2025 

 The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing matters related to the Evacuee Property dispute involving Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, instructing it not to go beyond the remit defined by the Court.

 

The direction came during the hearing of a plea concerning alleged irregularities in the restoration of properties formerly classified as evacuee property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, which were later claimed by Prof. Mahmudabad through a prolonged legal battle.

 

A Bench led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta noted that while the SIT is free to investigate what has been specifically assigned to it, it “should not attempt to expand the scope” of the investigation beyond what the Supreme Court has authorized.

 

 

Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a well-known academic and political historian, was at the center of a long legal dispute regarding the ownership of properties declared as “enemy property” after his father, a titular ruler and politician, migrated to Pakistan following Partition.

 

In 2005, the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Prof. Mahmudabad, holding that the properties in question could not be arbitrarily vested with the Custodian of Enemy Property. However, subsequent government actions and policy changes reopened concerns over the legality and procedure of property restoration, prompting further litigation and scrutiny.

 

The SIT was constituted in 2023 to probe whether there had been any irregularities or misuse of authority in how the properties were reclaimed and processed.

 

 

During the hearing, the Supreme Court clarified:

• The SIT’s mandate must remain within the boundaries defined in its formation order.

• Investigative overreach or attempts to revisit settled findings of earlier judgments would not be permitted.

• “If there are issues beyond the original terms of reference, proper legal procedure must be followed,” the Court said.

 

The court has listed the matter for further hearing in July and has asked for an updated report on the progress made within the scope already approved.

 Significance

 

The Court’s comments serve as a reminder that even high-level investigative teams must strictly comply with judicial mandates, particularly in politically sensitive or historically complex property matters. Legal observers see this as reinforcing judicial restraint and procedural discipline in ongoing investigative processes.