Page No.# 1/20 GAHC010273032019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8366/2019 DILOWARA BEGUM D/O- LT. RAKMAN MIYA @ RAKMAN MALLIK @ RASHMAN, W/O- RUPAL ALI, R/O- VILL. ROUMARI, P.S. TARABARI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-2. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF HOME DISPUR GHY.-06. 4:THE ASSAM STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH GHY.-05. 5:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM. 6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST. BARPETA Page No.# 2/20 ASSAM -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocated for petitioners: Mr. R. Dhar Advocate for Respondents: Mr. J. Payeng, SC, Home Deptt. & NRC Ms. A. Phookan, GA, Assam, Mr. N. Kalita,( on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI Ms. P.R. Choudhury (on behalf of Mr. H. Gupta, CGC). Date on which judgment is reserved : 18.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Pranjal Das, J) 1. Heard Shri R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department and N.R.C.; Ms. A. Phookan, GA, Assam; Shri. N. Kalita, (on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI); Ms. P.R. Choudhury (on behalf of Mr. H. Gupta, CGC). 2. The petitioner, namely, Dilowara Begum has invoked the Page No.# 3/20 provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to file this writ petition against the order Judgment and order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 7 Barpeta in F.T. Case No.331/2017 corresponding to R/IM(D)T Case No. 6223/1998. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and opinion dated 06.09.2019, the petitioner as proceedee who faced the reference proceedings before the learned Tribunal was declared a foreigner and illegal migrant, who had entered India/Assam on or after 25.03.1971. 3. Aggrieved by the said finding and opinion, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition before this Court. The facts may be narrated here in below:- 4. The case was originally forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, (Border) Barpeta under the IM(D)T Act, as it existed then, by Reference No. IMDT No. 6223 of 1998 to decide the nationality of the petitioner expressing doubts regarding the same. 5. Subsequently, upon striking down of the IM(D)T Act, 1983, all the cases pending under the said Act were transferred to the Foreigners Tribunals under the Foreigners Act. Accordingly, the present proceeding was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No.7 Barpeta, vide order dated 02.11.2015. Thereafter, the F.T. Case No. 331 of 2017 was registered by the concerned Tribunal and notice was issued to the petitioner as proceedee. 6. Upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner, as proceedee appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written statement, denying Page No.# 4/20 the allegations of being an illegal migrant and prayed for dismissal of the reference proceeding. 7. Subsequently, during the proceeding, the petitioner, as proceedee adduced evidence of three witnesses, including herself and two other witnesses. As part of her evidence, the petitioner, as proceedee also exhibited-9 (nine) documents, being Exhibit-A to Exhibit-I. 8. However, upon adjudication of the matter, the learned Tribunal did not find merit in the case of the petitioner and she was declared an illegal migrant post 25.03.1971 stream. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition was filed. 9. As mentioned above, upon receiving notice the petitioner as proceedee appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed her written statement denying the allegations of being an illegal migrant and contending that the Inquiry Officer did not enquire into the matter properly and unjustifiably made the reference suspecting her to be a foreigner. The petitioner stated in her written statement that she was born and brought up at village Bhayrarpam under the jurisdiction of Baghbar P.S. in the district of Barpeta. She stated that her father was late Rakman Miya @ Rahman Mallik, son of late Katu Miya and that her mother's name was Lal Bhanu Begum @ Lal Bhanu. She further stated that her grandfather's name was late Kato Miya and he expired before 1966 and that the petitioner's father expired 28 years ago and that her mother is still alive. Page No.# 5/20 10. The petitioner stated that she has five sisters and one brother, whose names were mentioned in the written statement. She stated that the names of her parents appeared in the electoral Rolls of 1966 and 1970 with regard to No. 52 Baghbar LAC of village Bhayrarpam. She further stated that, after 1980, her parents shifted from village Bhayrarpam to village-Bagarirtari within the jurisdiction of Tarabari police station in the district of Barpeta under No. 46 Sarukhetri LAC along with the petitioner and other family members. The petitioner stated that her mother's name appeared in the electoral roll of 1989, along with her own name and maternal grandmother Dalimun Nessa with regard to No. 46 LAC Sarukhetri of village in the district of Barpeta. She stated that her mother's name also appeared in the voters list of 1997 along with her brother Lalchan Mallik and maternal grandmother Dalimun Nessa in the said constituency. She stated that her mother's name also appeared in the voters lists of 2010 till 2016 along with her brother Lal Chan Mallik, sisters Anowara Mallik and Ramena Mallik in the said No. 46 Sarukhetri LAC. The petitioner stated that she was married to one Rupal Ali in 1995 by execution of Kabin- nama. She stated that her own name appeared in the voters list of 1997 along with her husband of village-Roumari, but she was marked as a “D” Voter. She stated about receiving residential certificates from the local Gaonburas of village Bagarirtari and Roumari. In para No. 16 of the written statement, the petitioner stated that the actual correct name of her father was Rakman Miya, which was correctly recorded in the voters list of 1966 and 1970, but in the voters lists of 1989 and 2016, her father's name was recorded as Rahman Mallik against the Page No.# 6/20 name of her mother and sister. Again in the voters list of 1997, her father's name was recorded as Rashman against her mother's name. In this context, she stated that Rahman Miya, Rahman Mallik and Rashman are one and the same person and the father of the petitioner. She also stated that correct name of her mother is Nal Bhanu Nessa, which was correctly recorded as such in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970. However, in the voters lists of 1989 and 2016 her mother's name was mentioned as Lal Bhanu Nessa and in the voters list of 2016 her mother's name was mentioned as Lal Bhanu Begum. 11. Further, in the voters list of 1997 her mother's name was recorded as Lal Bhanu. In this context, she stated that Nal Bhanu Nessa, Lal Bhanu Nessa, Lal Bhanu Begum and Lal Bhanu are one and the same person being her mother. Regarding herself, the petitioner stated in her written statement at Para-18 that her actual name is Dilowara Begum but in the voters list of 1989 her name is recorded as Dilowar Nessa and that both are one and the same person. The petitioner reiterated in her written statement that she is a bonafide citizen of India by birth and she had never relinquished her citizenship of India. In her evidence on affidavit as DW-1, the petitioner stated that she was an Indian citizen by birth having been born and brought up at village Bhayrarpam within the jurisdiction of Baghbar police station in the district of Kamrup, as it then existed and now Barpeta district of Assam. She deposed that her father's name is Rakman Miya @ Rahman Mallik and Rashman son of late Katu Miya and her mother's Page No.# 7/20 name is Lal Bhanu Nessa @ Lal Bhanu Begum @ Lal Bhanu and that her grandfather's name was late Katu Miya. She deposed that her grandfather expired before 1966 and her father expired 28 years ago, but her mother is alive. In paragraph-3 of her evidence on affidavit, DW-1 narrated the names of her five sisters and one brother namely Lalchan Mallik. DW-1, testified that name of her parents appeared in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 with regard to No. 52 Baghbar LAC at serial Nos.175 and 176 for 1966 and at serial Nos. 57 and 58 for 1970 with regard to village Bhayrarpam. She testified about her parents shifting to village Bagarirtari in 1980 along with their family members. She stated that her mother's name appeared in the electoral roll in 1989 along with her own name and maternal grandmother Dalimun Nessa with regard to No. 46 Sarukhetri LAC of village- Bagarirtari within the jurisdiction of Tarabari police station in the district of Barpeta. She also stated that her mother's name appeared in the voters list of 1997 with her brother Lalchan Mallik and maternal grandmother Dalimun Nessa with regard to No. 46 Sarukhetri LAC. She also mentioned about her mother's name appearing in the voters list of 2010 along with her brother Lalchand Mallik and maternal grandmother Dalimun Nessa with regard to the said Sarukhetri LAC. She stated that her mother's name appeared in the voters lists of 2010, 2016 as well, with regard to the said No. 46 Sarukhetri LAC. 12. DW-1 testified that she was married to Rupal Ali of village- Roumari in 1995 and that a Kabinnama was registered in this regard. She stated that her own name appeared in the voters list in 1997, along with her husband, but she was marked as a “D”voter. She Page No.# 8/20 testified that local Gaonburas of Bagarirtari and Roumari issued separate certificates regarding her marriage and residential identity. She testified that her father's actual name is Rakman Miya, which was correctly recorded in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 but in the voters lists of 1989 and 2016, it was recorded as Rahman Mallik. She further testified that in the voters list of 1997, her father's name was recorded as Rashman. In this context, he testified that Rakman Miya, Rahman Malik and Rashman are one and the same person, being her father. On the same lines, DW-1 testified that her mother's actual and correct name is Nal Bhanu Nessa, but in 1989 her mother's name was recorded as Lal Bhanu Nessa and in 2010 and 2016 as Lal Bhanu Begum. She further testified that in 1997, her mother's name was recorded as Lal Bhanu. In this respect, she stated that all the names are of her mother Nal Bhanu Nessa and she is one and the same person. 13. She testified regarding her own name that her name is Dilowara Begum, but in the voters list of 1989, her name was recorded as Dilowar Nessa and that they are one in the same person, being herself. As part of her deposition, she exhibited certified copy of the voters list of 1966 as Exhibit-A; certified copy of 1970 voters list as Exhibit-B; certified copy of voters list of 1989 as Exhibit-C; certified copy of 1997 voters list as Exhibit-D; certified copy of voters list of 2010 as Exhibit-E; certified copy of voters list of 2016 as Exhibit-F. She exhibited as Exhibit-G marriage Kabin-nama and as Exhibit-H and I, the certificates from the Gaonburas of villages- Bagarirtari and Roumari. In cross-examination, DW-1 stated that in the voters list of 1989, the Page No.# 9/20 person appearing as Lal Bhanu Nessa is her mother and Rahman Mallik is her father. She further stated that in 1989 voters list, her name appears along with her mother Lal Bhanu Nessa and that they cast their votes in this name only and that they have not cast their votes in any other name. She stated that in 1989, she cast her vote along with her mother at village Bagarirtari. She admitted that he does not have birth certificate and but that she was born at village Bhayrarpam and at 10 years of age, they shifted to Bagarirtari. She stated her present age at the time of deposition as 45 years. She admitted that her parents have not applied for name correction before the concerned Election Officer. She stated about her marriage being solemnized before Kazi. She stated about her mother still being alive. She admitted that she has not cast any vote along with her father. She admitted that she has not adduced any documents showing linkage with her father. She denied that she is not a citizen of India and she also denied that her parents were not being linked with her from the voters list of 1966 and 1970. 14. Lal Bhanu Nessa stated to be the mother of the petitioner adduced evidence as DW-3, in which she stated that she was born and brought up at village Chengelidiya under police station in the district of Barpeta and that she is a bonafide citizen of India by birth and she was married with one Rakman Miya @ Rahman Mallik of village-Bhayrarpam. She stated that her father's name was Mujafar Ali @ Mujafar Khan and her mother Daliman Nessa and that they were also Indian nationals. She stated that the petitioner Dilowara Begum is her daughter who was born and brought up at village-Bhayrarpam Page No.# 10/20 within the jurisdiction of Baghbar P.S. in the district of Barpeta and she was given in marriage with one Rupal Ali of village- Roumari in the district of Barpeta. She stated that she has five daughters and one son including petitioner Dilowar Begum and her brother Lalchan Mallik. She stated about her name appearing in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 along with her husband Rakman Miya at serial Nos. 175 and 176 and then 186 and 187 against No. 52 Baghbar LAC. 15. DW-3 stated about shifting of her family to village- Bagarirtari in 1980. She stated about her name appearing in the electoral roll of 1989 along with her mother Daliman Nessa and daughter Dilowara Begum @ Dilowara Nessa at serial nos. 1027, 1028, 1029 respectively of no. 46, Sarukhetri LAC, in the district of Barpeta. She stated that in the voters list of 1997 her name appears with her mother Daliman Nessa and son Lalchan Mallik. She also stated about her name figuring in the voters list of 2010 with her aforementioned mother and son. She stated that her name featured in voters list of 2016 along with son Lalchan Mallik, daughter-in-law Mafida Begum and daughters Ramena Mallik and Anowara Mallik. She stated that the Electoral Registration Officer of No. 46 Sarukhetri LAC issued an electoral photo identity card in her name. She stated that her actual and correct name is Nal Bhanu Nessa, which is correctly mentioned in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970, but in 1989 her name was recorded as Lal Bhanu Nessa and in the voters lists of 2010 and 2016 her name was recorded as Lal Bhanu Begum. She further testified that in 1997 voters list her name was recorded as Lal Bhanu. In this context, she testified that Nal Bhanu Nessa, Lal Bhanu Nessa, Lal Bhanu Begum and Lal Bhanu are one and Page No.# 11/20 the same person being herself. 16. DW-3 further testified that her present age at the time of deposition is 77 years and that in 1989, she was 47 years old, but in the voters list her age was wrongly recorded as 38 years. Similarly, in 1997 her age was wrongly recorded as 43 years instead of 55 years. Even in 2010, her age was wrongly recorded as 57 years instead of 68 years and in 2016 recorded as 62 years wrongly instead of 74 years. 17. She stated that the correct name of her husband is Rakman Miya, which was recorded as such in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970. However, in the voters lists of 1989 and 2016, it was recorded as Rahman Mallik and in 1997 as Rashman. In this context, she said that all these names pertain to her husband. 18. In cross-examination DW-3 stated that in the voters list of 1989 her name is Lal Bhanu Nessa and husband's name is indicated as Rahman Mallik and the name of Dilowara Nessa is also mentioned. She stated that she cast her vote in the name of Lal Bhanu Nessa and so did her husband as Rahman Mallik. She could not say as to when Dilowara Nessa was born and she could not also state the name of mother-in-law of Dilowara Nessa. She could not state the year of marriage of Dilowara Khatun but stated that her present age is 45 years. She stated that, she had cast vote in 1966 and 1970 with her husband and denied that, she had not done so. 19. One Kaddus Ali, Gaonbura adduced evidence as DW-2 on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that he had come to depose on Page No.# 12/20 behalf of the petitioner Dilowara Begum on receipt of summons, stating further that he was the Government Gaonbura of village- Bagarirtari and working as Gaonbura for the last 35 years and that he knew Dilowara Begum. He proved as Exhibit-H certificate dated 24.04.2019 issued by him and his signature thereon as Exhibit-H(1). He stated that father of Dilowara Begum is Rahman Mallik and she was married with Rupal Ali of village-Roumari. He proved his identity card as Exhibit-K. In cross examination, he stated that the petitioner had come to his residence for taking that certificate and that it is a residential certificate. He admitted that when the petitioner came to his residence for the certificate, she did not produce any land record documents showing her residence at village Bagarirtari nor did she show any PRC or other certificate regarding her residence. She also did not show any documents regarding her relationship with Rahman Mallik. He admitted that the petitioner had come to his residence and told her that a “D”-voter case is pending against her and for that a certificate is required and on her request, he issued the certificate on the basis of his personal knowledge. 20. DW-2, admitted that he had not read the executive instructions regarding Gaonbura under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 He stated that though the SDC instructed him to issue the certificate but he does not know the name of the SDC. He admitted that he did not know the age of Dilowara Begum or the mother's name of Rahman Mallik. He also could not say as to how many children Dilwara Begum had but he said that she was married with Rupal Ali. He admitted that he did not maintain contemporaneous public record. Page No.# 13/20 However, he denied that he had deposed falsely. 21. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner supporting the case of the petitioner submits that the parents of the petitioner were Indian citizens by birth whose names were recorded in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 and the petitioner is their daughter who was born and brought up in India and thereby a citizen of India by birth. It is submitted that the reference proceeding was unjustifiably initiated against her and that despite adducing of voluminous evidence and documents, the learned Tribunal committed error in appreciating the same and arrived at an incorrect finding holding the petitioner to be a foreigner and an illegal migrant post the cutoff date of 1971. 22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that her own mother has clearly stated about the petitioner being her own daughter. She has also submitted a certificate from the Gaonbura about her linkage with her mother. The learned counsel submits that there are adequate grounds for interference with the impugned judgment and opinion by allowing this writ petition. 23. On the other hand, Mr. Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel for the Home Deptt. and NRC submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned opinion and that the Gaonbura certificate was issued on personal knowledge and hence, it is hit due to improper proof. He further submits that in the voters list of 1989, the name of the village is different and there was no record to indicate shifting. He also submitted that even the name of the husband is found to be different in different documents. Page No.# 14/20 24. It is submitted by Mr. Payeng that it cannot be assumed that Lal bhanu of 1989 is the same person as Nal Bhanu Nessa of 1966. In this context, he submits that the link evidence with the Indian citizen ancestor cannot be proved merely by oral evidence in terms of the settled law. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the respondent side cites the following decisions:- (i) Romila Khatun Vs. Union of India (2018) 4 GLT 373 (ii) Sirajul Hoque Vs. The State of Assam and Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 534 (iii) Nur Begum Vs. The Union of India and Ors. (2020) 3 GLT 347, 25. We have perused the pleadings of the writ petition, the evidence and documents before the learned Tribunal, the impugned judgment and opinion and other relevant materials. 26. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the decisions cited at the Bar. 27. During the proceeding, the petitioner as proceedee mainly relied upon three documents to build a linkage with her projected father and mother, whose names purportedly appeared in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970. These documents were the voters list of 1989 exhibited as Exhibit-C, a Gaonbura certificate exhibited as Exhibit-H, and a Marriage Registration certificate exhibited as Exhibit-G. This, apart from the testimony of the Gaonbura as DW-2 and also the testimony of her projected mother, Nal Bhanu Nessa as DW-3. The Page No.# 15/20 learned Tribunal discarded all the three pieces of documentary evidence due to the reasons stated in the impugned opinion. 28. The oral testimony was also not considered to be corroborative enough to lend any support to the contention of the petitioner regarding link documentary evidence with her ancestors. Before proceeding further, the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 exhibited as Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B may be carefully perused. As already mentioned, these two documents have been exhibited as Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B, respectively. In the voters list of 1966, one Rakman Miya, son of Katu Miya, appears at serial no. 175, and Nal Bhanu Nessa, wife of Rakman, appears at serial No. 176. These two persons are projected to be the parents of the petitioner. In the 1970 voters list also, their names appear in such identical terms. The ages mentioned with regard to them in the voters list of 1966 and the voters list of 1970 are also compatible with each other. 29. In the vital document exhibited as Exhibit-C, being the electoral roll of 1989, the name of the petitioner purportedly appears. However, her name is mentioned as Dilowar Nessa rather than Dilowara Begum. The name of her projected mother, Nal Bhanu Nessa is mentioned in the voters list as Lal Bhanu Nessa. Against the column of wife of Lal Bhanu Nessa and against father of Dilowar Nessa - the name of Rahman Mallik is mentioned. Thus, we find that with regard to the voters lists of 1966 and 1970, where the projected mother of the petitioner is Nal Bhanu Nessa, but in the voters list of 1989, where the name of the petitioner purportedly appears along with her mother, her Page No.# 16/20 projected mother's name is mentioned as Lal Bhanu Nessa instead of Nal Bhanu Nessa. More importantly, the name of her father is mentioned as Rahman Mallik and the said name is grammatically and phonetically different from her projected father Rakman Miya of the voters lists of 1966 and 1970. Even her own name is mentioned as Dilowar Nessa instead of Dilowara Begum but the name of her projected father differs considerably from the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 - which is the crucial period - and the name of Rahman Mallik reflected in the voters list of 1989. Though, several subsequent voters lists have also been exhibited, but in none of them, the name of Rakman Miya figures. Moreover, in the subsequent voters lists, the name of the projected mother of the petitioner is written as Lal Bhanu Begum, rather than Nal Bhanu Nessa. 30. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that after 1970, the name of the projected mother of the petitioner appears in the voters list of 1989, thereby involving a gap of 19 years and such a long gap over the crucial period raises certain doubts. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be brushed aside easily as well. 31. Of course, in her testimony, the petitioner as DW-1 stated about Rahman Mallik and Rahman Miya being one and the same person and similarly Nal Bhanu Nessa and Lal Bhanu Begum being one and the same person. However, in the case of Nur Begum (Supra), it has been clearly held by this Court that in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the Page No.# 17/20 evidentiary value of oral testimony without the support of documentary evidence is wholly insignificant and that oral testimony alone is not proof of citizenship. The relevant paragraph may be reproduced herein:- “6. The statement of D.W. 2 i.e. Jahurun Begum, who claimed to be the mother of the petitioner, cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documents showing her relationship, either to the projected grandfather, father or to the petitioner herself. Oral testimony of D.W. 2 alone, sans any documentary support, cannot be treated as sufficient to prove linkage or help the cause of the petitioner. Surprisingly, the petitioner failed to produce a single voter list in her name even until the age of 50 years. We would reiterate that in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 the evidentiary value of oral testimony, without support of documentary evidence, is wholly insignificant. Oral testimony alone is no proof of citizenship. The evidence of D.W. 2, thus, falls short of being considered as cogent, reliable and admissible evidence, so much so, to establish linkage of the petitioner to the projected grandfather, grandmother and father. The petitioner utterly failed to prove her linkage to Indian parents relatable to a period prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971 through cogent, reliable and admissible documents.” (Emphasis added) 32. In the case of Romila Khatun (supra), it has been held that even self-serving suo-motu affidavit regarding such names would not be proof or evidence in light of Section 1 and 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and Order 19, Rule 1 of the CPC. The relevant paragraph-21 may be reproduced herein:- “21. Such a self-serving suo-moto affidavit is neither proof nor evidence in the light of sections 1 and 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Order 19, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Even then here also petitioner did not mention as to what was her age. 22. Be that as it may, on the basis of the above, it cannot be said that Page No.# 18/20 petitioner had discharged her burden under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that she was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. We, therefore, do not find any good ground in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.” (Emphasis added) 33. As regards the decision in Sirajul Hoque (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found in that case that except for minor difference in the names being Kefatullah and Kematullah, in other places, the names were consistent at other places and therefore, that was held to be not fatal. In our considered view, the same is not the case in the instant matter. 34. The learned Tribunal also discarded the marriage certificate as it was not issued by a Government registered Kazi under the Assam Muslim Marriage and Divorces Registration Act, 1935 and it was issued by a private Kazi and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Moreover, the said Kazi had also not adduced evidence. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence of the learned Tribunal with regard to the marriage certificate. 35. As regards the Gaonbura certificate which has been exhibited as Exhibit-H, though the Gaonburah Kaddus Ali adduced evidence as DW-2, but his evidence was not based on any contemporaneous public record, which has also been revealed from his testimony. Moreover, from his testimony it was found that he could not properly reveal the genealogy of the petitioner and it was clear from his testimony that he did not have special means of knowing the genealogy of the petitioner. It appeared that he had issued the certificate on the request of the Page No.# 19/20 petitioner as proceedee before the learned Tribunal. 36. It is also well settled that such certificate, unless based on contemporaneous records, would not be of much assistance to the petitioner to prove her Indian citizenship. 37. The learned Tribunal also found that DW-3, Nal Bhanu Nessa, the projected mother of the petitioner, adducing her evidence could not say as to when the petitioner was born nor the name of her mother-in-law. She could not say her date of birth nor her year of marriage. DW-3 also could not state as to the brothers and sisters of her father-in-law and the brothers and sisters of the petitioner's husband. The learned Tribunal was not convinced regarding her testimony and upon perusing the said testimony, we do not find the appreciation of evidence of the Tribunal in this regard and the finding thereof to be perverse. 38. Thus, in the backdrop of the above discussion, we find that there is inadequate documentary and oral evidence to prove that the persons Rakman Miya and Nal Bhanu Nessa appearing in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 are the parents of the petitioner, as was tried to be projected. 39. In the face of such failure to build the linkage with such persons prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971, we come to the inevitable conclusion that the learned Tribunal had rightly held that the petitioner as proceedee could not discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to prove that she was an Indian Page No.# 20/20 National. 40. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and opinion dated 06.09.2019, rendered by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 7 Barpeta in F.T Case No. 331 of 2017, is hereby upheld and confirmed. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. 41. Interim order dated 27.04.2020 shall stand vacated. 42. Records be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant