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 Prop