Dawood Ibrahim's ancestral lands sold after 4 failed auction attempts
What's the story
Four ancestral lands belonging to underworld don Dawood Ibrahim have finally been sold after four failed attempts to auction them off. The properties were auctioned by the central government on March 5, with a Mumbai-based bidder emerging as the highest bidder for all four plots. This marked the first successful sale since efforts began in 2017.
Property specifics
Details of the plots and highest bid
The properties are located in Mumbake village, Ratnagiri district, which is Ibrahim's ancestral village. Some of these lands were previously registered in the name of his mother, Amina Bi. The highest bid was for Survey Number 442 (Part 13-B), which went for over ₹10 lakh, which was more than the combined price of the other three plots.
Sale details
Payment to be completed by early April
The other three plots, Survey Numbers 533, 453, and 617, were sold at their respective reserve prices of ₹2.33 lakh, ₹8.08 lakh, and ₹15,440. Only one bidder came forward for these parcels. The buyer is expected to make full payment by early April 2026 before the sale gets final approval from the competent authority.
Auction history
Why previous auctions failed?
The properties were attached in the 1990s as part of action against Ibrahim's assets and were later taken over by the Central government under SAFEMA. Previous auction attempts in 2017, 2020, 2024, and 2025 failed due to lack of bidders. Even a nearly 30% reduction in reserve prices in November 2025 did not attract buyers. The connection to Ibrahim and the 'D-Company' is believed to have scared off potential buyers, as did the fact that they were in remote location.
Controversial sales
Controversy over previous purchases
The sale of properties linked to Ibrahim has been mired in controversy before. Delhi-based lawyer Ajay Shrivastav bought two flats in Mumbai's Nagpada area in 2001 but is yet to get possession, as the matter is pending with the Bombay High Court. In 2024, he bid ₹2.01 crore for a small land parcel (Survey No. 617). However, the contract was terminated since he failed to complete the payment.