S.G. Shah, J.

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused the record.

2. All these three petitions are more or less pertaining to the common detenu and properties owned by his family though arising out of different impugned order at different time. Therefore, when so many factual details are common and correlated, these petitions are heard together and decided together by this common judgment to avoid repetition of same facts in three different judgments and more particularly, when result of decision in one main petition will affect the decision in another petitions.

3. Though discussion of factual details and law point would be common, it would be appropriate to recollect the basic facts of each petition separately, which is summarized as under without reproducing the same factual details repeatedly for the next petition(s).

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6143/1999

4. The petitioner herein is Nazir Ahmed Usmangani Digmar as legal heir and representative of his mother Roshanbibi Usmangani Digmar as well as Shamabanu Nazirahmed Digmar.

5. Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 8.6.1999 by respondent No.2 Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'SAFEMA'). By such impugned judgment the appellate authority has confirmed order to forfeit 28% share in aggregate belonging to deceased Roshanbibi Usmangani Digmar and Shamabanu Nazirahmed Digmar in the property known as "Shama Theater" with building and equipment and other assets by confirming the order of respondent No.1 u/S. 7 of SAFEMA.

6. The Petitioner Has Also Prayed To Restrain The first respondent being Competent Authority under SAFEMA from taking possession of the said 28% share in partnership firm on the basis of their notice dated 7.7.1999 issued u/S. 19(1) of the SAFEMA.

7. Such Petition Was Filed In August, 1999 Wherein probably first order is only dated 23.12.1999 which reads as under:

"Heard Ld. Advocate Mr.Kazi, Mr.Sanjanwala & Mr.Jayant Patel for the parties. The matter is awaiting admission. However, by way of an interim arrangement the following order is passed which is also executable even if the matter is not admitted.

2. There is no dispute at present about the fact that the petitioner has only 28% shares in the property. The dispute is whether that right is rightly forfeited or not.

3. Without observing anything on the maintainability of this petition, it is directed that the Competent Authority/respondent No.1 shall proceed to auction the whole property in question and the petitioner as well as the other owners having 72% of the share will be entitled to participate in the auction. It is also directed that the upset prince (reserve price) shall be fixed by the Authority in consultation with the petitioner as well as the other owners. After obtaining the Valuation report from an authorised Valuer if there is any dispute regarding upset price, it would be open for the parties to approach this Court. On completion of the auction proceedings & realization of the price, the sale proceeds will be deposited in this Court and the Court shall thereafter pass appropriate orders. The auction proceedings shall be completed at the earliest preferably before 10.2.2000. S.O. to 10.2.2000."

8. Thereafter, order dated 26.4.2004 reads as under:

"It appears that this Court had passed an order on 23/12/99 that the Competent Authority/respondent No.1 shall proceed to auction the whole property in question and the petitioner as well as the other owners having 72% of the share will be entitled to participate in the auction. It was also directed that upset price shall be fixed by the authority in consultation with the petitioner as well as the other owners, after obtaining the valuation report from an authorized Valuer. It was further directed that in case of any dispute regarding upset price, it would be open to the parties to approach t