Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010045752020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1656/2020 NUR NEHAR BEGUM W/O. MOTIOR RAHMAN, D/O. HABIBAR RAHMAN, VILL. SALMARA PART VII, (BAHIR SALMARA), P.S. FAKIRGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHARALUPAR BHANGAGARH P.O. BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 DIST. KAMRUP (M) Page No.# 2/15 ASSAM. 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.S. AND P.O. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301. 6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z HUSSAIN, MS B B AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocate for the petitioner : Shri. Z. Hussain Advocate for the respondent No.1 : Ms. K.Deka, CGC Advocate for respondent No. 2,4 & 6 : Shri. G. Sarma, SC Advocate for the respondent No.3 : Shri. A.I Ali, SC, ECI Advocate for the respondent No.5 : Shri. P. Sarma, Govt. Adv. Date on which judgment is reserved : 11.08.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 3/15 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 11-09-2026 (Pranjal Das, J)tra Heard Shri. Z. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Deka, learned CGC for the respondent No.1; Shri. N. Kalita, learned counsel representing Shri. A.I Ali, the learned Standing counsel, ECI for the respondent No. 3; Shri. G. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Home and NRC for the respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 6 and Shri. P. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No.5. 2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Nur Nehar Begum, has assailed the impugned judgment and opinion dated 30-11-2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Dhubri, in FT Case No. 679/F/15, arising out of Police Reference Case No. 1023/1998. By the said impugned opinion, the petitioner, as proceedee, was declared a foreign national post the stream of 25-03-1971. 3. The facts in brief are that upon suspicion of being a foreign national, an inquiry was conducted and on the basis of the report of the L.V.O and E.R.O of 22 South Salmara LAC, the S.P (Border) of Dhubri, as the competent authority, forwarded the reference to the Tribunal to decide the question of nationality of the petitioner as proceedee. Accordingly, the reference was registered as FT Case No. 679/F/15 and notice was issued to the proceedee, whereupon she appeared and filed a written statement along with copies of the documents. In her written statement, the proceedee claimed that she was not a foreign national and that she was a citizen of India by birth. She also contended that even her father and grandparents were citizens of India, having figured in the NRC of 1951 and also in the voters list of 1966 and 1970. 4. During the proceeding, the petitioner, as proceedee, adduced evidence of herself as DW1, her father as DW2, and one Gaon Panchayat Secretary as DW3. All the witnesses were cross- examined by the Assistant Government, leader on behalf of the State. As part of her evidence, she also exhibited as many as 11 documents. However, despite the effort on the part of the Page No.# 4/15 proceedee, the learned Tribunal was not of the opinion that she was successful in proving her linkage to any Indian citizen ancestor who was present in India prior to 25-03-1971. Accordingly, the reference was answered in the negative against her, declaring her a foreigner of the stream post 25-03-1971. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. In her written statement, the petitioner denied that she was a foreign national and contended that her parents and grandparents were also not foreign nationals. She contended that the allegation of her being a foreigner is completely false and concocted. The petitioner stated in her written statement that her father's name was Habibur Rahman, who had contracted marriage with three women, namely Tahmina Bibi, Omela Bibi, and Rasida Begum. She stated that Rasida Begum was her mother and that her father with her aforementioned mother begot seven children, including herself. 6. The petitioner contended in the written statement that she was born and brought up at village Boro Ravatari, Part-II, under 22 South Salmara LAC, in the district of then Goalpara and presently Dhubri district. The petitioner stated that her grandfather's name was Alhaj Nayeb Ali and grandmother's name was Joygon Bibi and that the name of her grandparents as well as father and also her uncle was recorded in the NRC of 1951, with regard to House No.4 of No.2 village Monirchar, Boidergaon, under the jurisdiction of South Salmara Police Station. She also contended that her name of her father Habibur Rahman, son of Alhaj Moulobi Nayeb Ali, was recorded in a land document being Khatian No.349, pertaining to land measuring 1B, 1K, 14L, situated at village Choitarchar, Part-I, under South Salmara Police Station in the district of then Goalpara, Assam. 7. The petitioner further stated in the written statement that due to erosion, her father, grandfather along with other family members shifted to village Boro Ravatari, Part-II, under 32 South Salmara LAC after 1951 from the village Monirchar, Boidergaon. She stated about her father passing HSLC Examination in 1964. It is further contended by the petitioner, in her written statement that her grandfather Nayeb Ali, grandmother Joygon Bibi, uncle Mohammad Ali Miah, aunty Sakina Bibi, uncle Golam Sarowar, were enrolled in the voters' list of 1966 by Serial Nos. 445, 446, 447, 448 and 449, in respect of village Boro Ravatari, Part-II, under 32 South Salmara LAC. She further contended that her father Habibur Rahman, grandfather Alhaj Page No.# 5/15 Nayeb Ali, grandmother Joygon Bibi were also enrolled in the voters' list of 1970 against House No. 102 of village Boro Ravatari, Part-II of the same assembly constituency. She also stated about her grandfather Nayeb Ali and grandmother Joygon Bibi enrolled in the voters' list of 1977 and that in 1977 her grandparents died. 8. In paragraph-27 of her written statement, the petitioner stated that she married one Motiar Rahman by executing registered Kabin Nama. She stated about the certificate, issued by the Secretary of the Nayahat Gaon Panchayat issued on 28th May 2015, regarding linkage with her parents. She stated that in 1997 her name and that of her husband were enrolled in the voters' list of 1997 against House No. 221 of village Salmara, Part VII, under 22 South Salmara LAC. However, she admitted that the petitioner was marked as D-voter in the said list. She stated that the actual name of her grandfather was Nayeb Ali but after performing ‘Haj’, he came to be known also as ‘Alhaj’ and due to some religious performances, he was also known as Moulobi and therefore, the name Alhaj Moulobi Nayeb Ali is none but the grandfather of the petitioner, namely Nayeb Ali. She also stated that Roshida Khatun and Roshida Begum are also one and the same person being her mother. She also stated that Nur Nehar Begum, Nur Nehar Bibi and Musstt. Nur Nehar Begum are also one and the same person being herself. 9. In her evidence on affidavit as DW1, the petitioner, Nur Nehar Begum as proceedee, reiterated her contentions of the written statement stating that she was a citizen of India by birth having been born and brought up at village Boro Ravatari Part-II under 22 South Salmara LAC in the then district of Goalpara now Dhubri district. She further testified that her parents are also born and brought up in the country and that the allegation of her being a foreigner is false. She stated about her father's name being Habibur had three wives with Roshida Begum being her mother. She stated that her father, uncle, grandfather and great-grandfather were also born and brought up at village Monirchar Boidergaon under the jurisdiction of South Salmara Police Station. 10. In paragraph-13 of the evidence on affidavit, DW1 stated that the names of her grandfather Nayeb Ali and grandmother Joygon Bibi along with other family members including her father Habibur Raman appeared in the NRC of 1951. She further testified that her father Habibur Rahman also appeared in a document being Khatian No. 349 of land measuring Page No.# 6/15 1B, 1K, 14L situated at Part-1 South Salmara under the jurisdiction of South Salmara Police Station. She exhibited the NRC document of 1951 as Exhibit 1 and the aforementioned land document as Exhibit 2. 11. In paragraph-15, she testified about shifting of the family of her father and grandfather after 1951 to village Boro Ravatari Part-II under 32 South Salmara LAC within the jurisdiction of South Salmara Police Station. 12. DW1 further stated in her deposition that her father Habibur Rahman passed HSLC examination in 1964 with Roll No. 311. She exhibited the certificate issued by the Secretary of Board of Secondary Education Board as Exhibit 3. The petitioner exhibited as Exhibit 4, the voters list of 1966, in which the name of her grandfather Nayeb Ali, grandmother Joygon Bibi along with other family members is stated to have figured. Similarly, she exhibited as Exhibit 5 the voters list of 1970, wherein the names of her aforementioned grandparents and also her father Habibur Raman along with other family members are stated to have figured. 13. In paragraph-19 of her evidence, the petitioner also testified that her aforementioned grandparents and her father Habibur Rahman also figured in the voters list of 1977 against the same constituency. She exhibited the said voters list as Exhibit 6. She testified that her grandparents died in 1977. She further testified that her father Habibur Rahman, stepmother Omela Khatun and mother Rashida Khatun figured in the voters list of 1985 against House No.14, village Boro Ravatari Part-II under 22, South Salmara LAC, exhibiting the same voters list as Exhibit 7. 14. She also exhibited as Exhibit 8 wherein the name of her father Habibur Raman is stated to have figured in with regard to land measuring 4B.0K.15L situated at village Fakiranirjhar Part-I under Bilasipara Circle in the district of Dhubri. She stated that after 1985 due to erosion her father and her family members again shifted to village Fakiranirjhar Part-I under 26 Bilasipara West LAC and that, in that constituency, the names of her father and mother figured in the voters list of 1997 which she exhibited as Exhibit 9. About her marriage with one Motiar Rahman, she annexed the Kabin Nama; however, it was not exhibited to prove her linkage with her ancestors. She adduced in evidence as Exhibit 11 a certificate dated 28-05- 2015, issued by the Secretary of Nayahat Gaon Panchayat, countersigned by the B.D.O of Mohamaya Development Block of village Fakiranirjhar Part-I under Nayahat Gaon Panchayat, Page No.# 7/15 Bilasipara, Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri. She contended that in the saide certificate she was mentioned as the daughter of Habibur Raman and Rashida Begum and stated that she was married with one Motiar Raman. She exhibited the voters list of 1997-2019 stating that therein her name and that of her husband figured. She stated in paragraph-32 about some discrepancies in the name of in the ages of her grandmother Joygon Bibi recorded in the different voters lists. She also stated about similar discrepancies with regard to her mother Rashida Begum. She stated that due to performing Haj and also some religious performance, her grandfather Nayeb Ali was also known as Alhaj Moulabi Nayeb Ali. In cross-examination, DW1 reiterated that she was born in Boro Ravatari village. She also reiterated that her grandfather's name was Nayeb Ali and grandmother's name Joygon Bibi. She stated in cross- examination that her father had passed HSLC examination. She stated that she was married to Motiar Raman and a Kabin Nama was executed. She also stated about the Goan Panchayat certificate. 15. The aforementioned Habibur Raman stated to be the father of the petitioner, adduced evidence on affidavit in her favour as DW2. He stated that he is the father of the petitioner and that he is a bona fide citizen of India by birth, born and brought up in the village under the jurisdiction of South Salmara Police Station. He denied the allegations of his daughter being a foreigner. He stated about his three brothers including himself and four sisters and about his three wives. He stated about having seven daughters with Rashida Begum projected to be the mother of the petitioner. 16. He stated that his daughter Nur Nehar Begum, the petitioner was born and brought up at village Boro Ravatari Part-II within the jurisdiction of South Salmara Police Station. He also testified about the names of his father, grandmother and some other family members enlisted in the NRC of 1951. He also testified about his name figuring in a land document being Khatian No. 349 of land measuring 1B, 1K, 14L situated at village Choitarchar Part-I within the jurisdiction of South Salmara Police Station. He stated that the said document has been exhibited as Exhibit 2 by his daughter. He also testified about shifting due to erosion after 1951 to village Boro Ravatari Part-II under 32 South Salmara LAC within the jurisdiction of South Salmara Police Station. Page No.# 8/15 17. DW2 stated about passing HSLC Examination in 1964 and that the document in this regard has already been exhibited by his daughter. He stated about his father Nayeb Ali, mother Joygon Bibi and two brothers and sister-in-law figuring in the voters list of 1966, copy of which has been exhibited by his daughter. He also stated about figuring of his name as well as that of his father and grandmother in the voters list of 1970. He also testified about the katcha patta exhibited by DW1 Exhibit-8. He stated about another shifting after 1985 due to erosion to village Fakiranirjhar Part 1 under 26 Bilasipara West LAC. He also testified about his name figuring in the voter’s lists of 1997 and 2017. He stated about the marriage of his daughter Nur Nehar Begum with Motiar Rahman by executing Kabin Nama. He testified about the Gaon Panchayat Certificate, issued by the Secretary of Nayahat Gaon Panchayat on 28th May 2015. He exhibited his Voter’s I-card as Exhibit 12. He stated about the figuring of the names of his daughter Nur Nehar Begum along with her husband in the voters list of 1997 and 2019. Though, in the voters list of 1997, she was marked as ‘D’ voter. DW2 also stated about the age- based discrepancies pointed out by DW1 in recording the names of her grandparents in the voters list, in some of the voters list. 18. In cross-examination by the State, DW2 admitted that his daughter, the opposite party, i.e. the petitioner has a D-voter case. He stated that his father was from Monirchar, Baidergaon village, and that the petitioner was born at village Boro Ravatari. He stated about his shifting from Monirchar village to Boro Ravatari village and later in 1990, again shifted from Bororabatari village to Fakiranijhar Part-I village. In cross-examination, he reiterated about passing HSLC Examination in 1964. He stated about his father's name being Nayeb Ali. He stated about the petitioner being married to Motiur Raman. DW2 stated that he first cast his vote in the year 1970. 19. One Ali Hussain Sarkar, who is stated to be Secretary of Nayahat Gaon Panchayat under Mahamaya Development Block, in the district of Dhubri, adduced evidence as DW3. In his examination-in-chief recorded in Court, he stated that he had issued a certificate on 28-05- 2015, in the name of Nur Nehar Begum, daughter of Habibur Rahman and Rashida Begum of village Fakiranirjhar, Part-I. He stated that in the said document Exhibit 11, it is written that Nur Nehar Begum got married with Motiur Rahman of village Bahir Salmara. He proved his Page No.# 9/15 signature thereon as Exhibit 11 (i) and (ii) and the counter signature of BDO as Exhibit 11(iii), stating that he is acquainted with that signature. In cross-examination, DW3 stated that he had received an application from Habibur Rahman on 28-05-2015 and accordingly, issued the certificate. He further clarified that he had written the name of Nur Nehar Begum, daughter of Habibur Rahman on the basis of data found in the Kabin Nama. He stated that he had issued the certificate Exhibit 11 after examining the NRC of 1951, Kabin Nama and deposition of the ward member. He admitted that there was no issue register maintained in the office. 20. Mr. Z. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the grandparents of the petitioner figured in the voters list of 1966 and that they were Indian citizens. He also submits that apart from these grandparents, her father also figured in the voters list of 1970. 21. The learned counsel submits that the figuring of Habibur Raman, the father of the petitioner in the land document in the nature of Khatian, shows his presence in India prior to the cut off date. It is submitted that the petitioner has adduced sufficient link evidence in the nature of the Gaon Panchayat certificate and in support of the same, the author of the document has also adduced evidence. He submitted that the linkage document was issued after the Secretary had perused the Kabin Nama and the NRC of 1951 and that therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the said document and the linkage it creates between the petitioner and her parents. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal mis-appreciated the evidence and wrongly arrived at the finding that the petitioner was a foreign national. 22. On the other hand, Mr. G. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 4, being the Home Department of the State and the NRC, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned opinion and that during the proceeding, the petitioner as proceedee was not successful in creating the necessary link evidence. 23. Referring to the decision of Abdul Mojid @ Mojid Ali -versus- Union of India, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 45, the learned counsel, Mr. Sarma submits that it is a well-settled position of law that extracts of NRC are not admissible in evidence. Referring to the decision of Khudeja Khatun -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in 2018 (3) GLT 347, the learned counsel submits that the Gaon Panchayat Certificate would not create sufficient link evidence to prove that the petitioner was an Indian citizen. Page No.# 10/15 24. It is contended and submitted that the basis on which the contents of the certificate were proved have not been properly adduced in evidence to create sufficient linkage evidence. To buttress his submission on this point that such a certificate by Gaon Panchayat is by itself not a sufficient proof of citizenship, he also refers to the decision of Rupjan Begum -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in (2018)1 SCC 579. 25. Referring to the decision of Aziz Miya -versus- Union of India, reported in 2023 (4) GLT 246, the learned counsel, Mr. Sarma submits that mere figuring of the projected grandparents and father of the petitioner in the voter's list of 1966 and 1970 respectively would not be sufficient to prove her Indian citizenship and that she has to lead cogent evidence to link her with those ancestors and that the same is missing in the instant case. 26. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the writ petition, the written statement, the evidence adduced before the Tribunal including the documents exhibited. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels on both the sides and perused the decisions cited at the Bar. 27. Under section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946, the burden is upon the proceedee to prove that he or she is an Indian citizen. In the context of this basic statutory position, a catena of decisions of the Gauhati High Court have laid down that to discharge this burden, the proceedee has to show a linkage with an ancestor who was present in India before the cut-off date of 25-03-1971. Such linkage evidence has to be by cogent documentary evidence, and that only oral evidence has been held to be insufficient to discharge the burden, though such oral evidence can be of corroborative value to support the documentary evidence. 28. Thus, the essence of the burden that has to be discharged by the proceedee is to adduce cogent documentary evidence which shows the linkage of the proceedee with such an Indian citizen ancestor. To put it alternatively, the presence of a person projected to be the ancestor of the proceedee in India prior to the cut-off date of 25-03-1971 would be the legacy evidence, and the linkage of the proceedee with the said Indian citizen ancestor would be the linkage evidence. Thus, both the legacy and the linkage evidence has to be adduced and linked by the proceedee so as to successfully discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946. Page No.# 11/15 29. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal discarded the documentary evidence pertaining to the NRC of 1951, figuring the projected grandfather and grandmother of the petitioner on the ground that under Section 15 of the Census Act, NRC document is not admissible in evidence. In support of the said contention, the learned Tribunal referred to the decision of this Court, in the case of Bhanbhasa Shiekh -versus- Union of India, reported in 1970 Assam LR 206. 30. The said decision is one of the earlier authorities on this point vis-a-vis Section 15 of the Census Act, that records of census are not open to inspection and such documents are not admissible in evidence. Paragraph-11 of Abdul Mojid (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4, refers to the aforementioned decision and reiterated the settled position that NRC extracts are not admissible in evidence for any purpose. The said paragraph-11 may be reproduced herein below: “11. Ext.1 is stated to be a true copy of National Register of Citizens (NRC), 1951 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri on 17.10.1985 containing the names of Haru Dewani, Belaton Nessa, Madan Sheikh (Matin) and Hanif Shekih. NRC, 1951 was prepared on the basis of the Census Act, 1948. As per Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948, record of census are not open to inspection and thus not admissible in evidence. Therefore, in Bhanbhasa Sheikh Vs. Union of India, 1970 Assam LR 206, a Single Bench of this Court categorically held that NRC extracts produced to prove domicile in India is not admissible in evidence for any purpose. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in Bhanbhasa Sheikh (supra). Therefore, Ext.1 is no evidence in the eye of law." 31. The figuring of the names of Nayeb Ali and Joygon Bibi, the projected grandparents of the petitioner in the voters list of 1966, could only show that these two persons were present in India around that time, and therefore perhaps Indian citizens. 32. Similarly, the figuring of their names again, along with the name of Habibur Rahman, the projected father of the petitioner in the voters list of 1970, exhibited during the proceeding, would similarly show their presence in India at the relevant time and indicate that they were perhaps Indian citizens. Page No.# 12/15 33. However, what is most important from the point of view of the petitioner as proceedee, was that by cogent documentary evidence, she had to show before the Tribunal that she was indeed the daughter of the said Habibur Rahman and the granddaughter of the said Nayeb Ali, whose legacy evidence prior to the cutoff date has been adduced in evidence during the proceeding. 34. As already mentioned above, the proceedee adduced as Exhibit 3, a certificate from the Board of Secondary Education Assam about Habibur Rahman passing the HSLC examination in 1964. In the said certificate, his age at the time of such passing has been indicated as 16 years, 10 months. 35. The petitioner as proceedee has also adduced in evidence a land document by way of Khatian as already mentioned above, figuring the name of Habibur Rahman. The learned Tribunal came to the finding that the said land document was issued in 1962 and going by the said at that time, the age of the said Habibur Rahman, the projected father of the petitioner, would be about 14 years and therefore a minor. It further opined that going by the HSLC certificate of the Board, the age of the petitioner's projected father was 16 years, 10 months in 1964. 36. The learned Tribunal, while discussing these parts of the evidence, held that with regard to the age of petitioner's projected father Habibur Rahman being 14 years as per the land document of inheritance issued in 1962, there is no explanation. Moreover, the Tribunal also noticed that the land document in the nature of Khatian (Exhibit 2) and the HSLC certificate (Exhibit 3) have not been proved by the issuing authority. In the circumstances, the learned Tribunal doubted its genuineness, even though these documents were more than 30 years old and discarded the same. The Tribunal also noticed that in the HSLC certificate of the projected father of the petitioner, his father's name and school name are also not mentioned. Accordingly, both the documents were discarded by the learned Tribunal. 37. It is well settled that certiorari jurisdiction, which this Court is presently exercising while adjudicating this lis, is of a supervisory nature, rather than of appellate nature. The certiorari jurisdiction would be activated if the Tribunal as a quasi-judicial authority was found to be overlooking relevant evidence or relying upon inadmissible evidence or if the finding of the Page No.# 13/15 Tribunal is based on no evidence, in which case it would be a case of perversity. Exercise of such supervisory jurisdiction could also be justified if the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal suffers from a gross error or material irregularity, leading to a jurisdictional error. 38. Upon perusing the above-referred documentary evidence, we find that there is no infirmity in discarding of the documentary evidence of NRC in terms of the legal position discussed above. As regards the land document also, the anomaly in the age of the projected father that it leads to also cannot be overlooked. 39. Upon perusing the academic certificate, we concur with the opinion of the Tribunal that the said certificate is bereft of the father's name of Habibur Rahman and also the school. In such a certificate, at least the school name and name of the father should have found mention. We are, therefore of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Tribunal with regard to this documentary evidence and therefore, no infirmity in the Tribunal discarding the said evidence. 40. In Rupjan Begum (supra), it has been made clear by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a certificate issued by Gaon Panchayat Secretary would be by no means sufficient to establish any claim of citizenship of the holder of the certificate. It was further opined and held that such a certificate has to be verified at two stages regarding its authenticity as well as the authenticity of the contents thereof. The relevant paragraphs-15 and 16 may be reproduced herein below: ”15. The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary merely acknowledges the shifting of residence of a married woman from one village to another. The said certificate by itself and by no means establishes any claim of citizenship of the holder of the certificate. This is made clear in the illustrative list of documents itself by specifying the same to be only a supporting document. The certificate in question only enables its holder to establish a link between the holder and the person from whom legacy is claimed. It has been made clear in the several reports of the learned State Coordinator, NRC, Assam that a claim accompanied by such a certificate, without details of the legacy person, is to be discarded and in the event information as to the legacy person has been furnished, the certificate in question is to be used for the limited purpose of providing a linkage after due enquiry and verification. Page No.# 14/15 16. The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary, by no means, is proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a citizen) is established. The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is the authenticity of the contents thereof. The latter process of verification is bound to be an exhaustive process in the course of which the source of information of the facts and all other details recorded in the certificate will be ascertained after giving an opportunity to the holder of the certificate. If the document and its contents is to be subjected to a thorough search and probe we do not see why the said certificate should have been interdicted by the High Court, particularly, in the context of the facts surrounding the enumeration and inclusion of the documents mentioned in the illustrative list of documents, as noticed above. In fact, the said list of illustrative documents was also laid before this Court in the course of the proceedings held from time to time and this Court was aware of the nature and effect of each of the documents mentioned in the list.” 41. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Khudeja Khatun (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents referring to Rupjan Begum (supra) has arrived at the conclusion that such a certificate is not sufficient to prove the issue of citizenship. The relevant paragraph 15.1 may be reproduced herein below: ”15.1. Firstly, this document does not appear to be a genuine document inasmuch as a Gaon Panchayat is not a department of the Govt. of Assam. Therefore, Gaon Panchayat is not authorised to use a letter head with "Govt. of Assam" printed therein. Secondly, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat did not testify before the Tribunal alongwith the evidence on the basis of which Ext. D certificate was issued to prove the certificate as well as the contents thereof. Therefore, this certificate was not proved. Thirdly, Supreme Court has clarified in Rupjan Begum Vs Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579, that such a certificate of the Gaon Panchayat Secretary is by no means proof of citizenship. Such a certificate has to be verified at two stages. At the first stage, authenticity of the certificate itself is required to be verified to find out as to whether it is genuine or not. The second stage of verification relates to verification of the contents. There is nothing on record to show that Ext. D had undergone any such verification exercise. Therefore, Ext. D cannot be accepted as a valid piece of evidence." Page No.# 15/15 42. In the said certificate adduced in this case, though the petitioner has been mentioned to be the daughter of Habibur Rahman and Rashida Begum, the projected parents, and the author of the document has also adduced evidence but what is most important to note is that the DW3, the purported author of the said certificate issued, in his capacity as GP Secretary, has stated in his testimony that he has stated the petitioner to be the daughter of Habibur Rahman and Rashida Begum on the basis of the 1951 NRC document and her Kabin Nama. In this context, the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the above-referred Kabin Nama has not been adduced in evidence during the proceeding. Therefore, we are also of the opinion that the basis on which DW3 had indicated in the certificate about the petitioner being the daughter of Habibur Rahman is inadequate and therefore, the GP Certificate (Exhibit 11) would not constitute sufficient linkage evidence to show that the petitioner is the daughter of Habibur Rahman whose name figures in the voters list of 1970. 43. Consequently, we have no option but to come to the opinion that there is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence of the Gaon Panchyat Certificate by the Tribunal and in coming to the conclusion that during the proceeding, the proceedee has not been able to adduce sufficient documentary evidence to build the linkage with the legacy evidence in the form of her projected father and grandfather. In other words, the petitioner as proceedee has not been able to adduce effective evidence to build her linkage with her projected Indian citizen ancestors. Hence, we come to the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the opinion of the Tribunal in answering the reference against the petitioner as proceedee. 44. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and opinion dated 30-11-2019 passed by the learned Member of Foreigners Tribunal No.2, Dhubri in FT Case 679/F/15 (arising out of Police Reference Case No. 1023/1998) is hereby upheld and confirmed. Interim order stands vacated. 45. The writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of. 46. Return back the records to the learned Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant