B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.

These three revisions almost since involve same questions of law, though facts are different, thereby taken up for common disposal from different hearings.

2. Heard both sides and perused the respective impugned orders of the District Collector vis-a-vis the lower appellate Court and the respective grounds of revisions and the respective contentions raised with provisions and propositions of law in relation thereto.

3. The common questions of law involved in answering the respective revisions are:

1. Whether the confiscation proceedings of the learned Collector confirmed or to some extent modified, as the case may be, by the respective Sessions Judges, while sitting in appeal, are unsustainable and there are no grounds for initiation of proceedings for confiscation and the very seizure itself is not sustainable and there is no violation of any Statutory provisions or Control Orders and the same are in ignorance of the said provisions or settled propositions and, if so, liable to be set aside?

2. To what result, respectively?

4. The factual background necessary to mention in dealing with the respective revisions are:

Crl.R.C No. 182 of 2017:—

(a) The Tahsildar