Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010135362025 2025:GAU-AS:10950-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3872/2025 RAHIMA KHATUN @ RAHIMA BEGUM W/O SAMARUDDIN @ SAMAR ALI, R/O VILL- NARAMARI, P.S.- DHARAMTUL, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, JAISALMER HOUSE, 26, MANSINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U DUTTA, MR. B. KUMAR Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 18.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC; Ms. N. Bedi, learned counsel on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Rahima Khatun @ Rahima Begum has assailed the impugned opinion dated 16.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1st, Morigaon, Assam in F.T (C) Case No. 779/2010, arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 531/2001, dated 29.08.2001, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. 3. By order dated 14.07.2025, keeping the issue of maintainability open on account of delay and laches, the Court was inclined to issue notice returnable 18.08.2025. As the records of the Tribunal were already called for in connection with WP(C) 4136/2019, a fresh requisition for records was not required to be made. 4. On the issue of delay and laches, the learned counsel petitioner has referred to the statements made in paragraph no. 20 to 28 of the writ petition and it was submitted that the petitioner, in course of her evidence, had exhibited the certified copy of the jamabandi in respect of land covered by Dag Page No.# 3/5 no. 242 of Patta no. 319 of vill- no. 1 Naramari, wherein the name of Amjat Ali, projected to be great grandfather of the petitioner was recorded. It is submitted that after he expired, the name of Abdul Jalil, the projected grandfather of the petitioner along with the names of his sibling were recorded. The said land record was exhibited as Ext. 6. However, the said evidence was rejected by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the jamabandi (Ext. 6), where the name of the petitioner along with siblings and her mother was mutated, which is annexed to the writ petitioner as Annexure-L, is sufficient to establish the link of the petitioner with her projected father, grandfather and great grandfather. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to statements made in paragraph no. 24 of the writ petition to project that the said land record is a vital piece of evidence which would show that the petitioner has been able to discharge her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. 5. Referring to the statements made in paragraph no. 26 of the writ petition, it was submitted that by preparing the draft of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner had noticed that the petitioner had not supplied the required copies of land records and other relevant documents. However, learned counsel could not communicate with the petitioner as he could not trace out any contact number. Accordingly, it has been stated that after contacting the learned counsel at Morigaon, who was engaged during the trial of the reference case, was contacted, who had informed the petitioner and thereafter, the copies of jamabandi and other documents were supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. However, there was again some delay on part of the petitioner in providing the documents. Only in the last week of April, 2025, when the State Government started the drive to send back the foreign Page No.# 4/5 nationals, the husband of the petitioner called the learned engaged counsel to know the status of WP(C) 3560/2019, filed by the husband of the petitioner no. 1 and only then the lack of documents were pointed out and those documents were furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition was drafted and filed. 6. The ground for delay as projected in this writ petition is opposed by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters. 7. On a perusal of the documents appended to the writ petition, it is noted that while the corrected copy of the jamabandi (Annexure-L) was printed out on 17.06.2025, but the copy of the jamabandi showing name of the projected father and grandfather of the petitioner, which is available at page-36 of the writ petition, the print out of the said jamabandi was made on 05.03.2019. However, on perusal of the relevant entries, which was passed by the strength of order dated 16.05.2019, passed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No. MOR/MOR/2018-19/1296/FMUT, the names of Musstt. Rahima Khatun (daughter of late Jainuddin), Musstt. Abeda Khatun (father, late Jainuddin), Md. Amir Hussain (father late Jainuddin), Md. Saddam Hussain (father, late Jainuddin) and Musstt. Khudeja Begum (husband, late Jainuddin) were substituted and mutated in place of Jainuddin. The said document does not appear to be an exhibited document though the order of mutation was passed in the year 2018-19. However, the said mutation was passed pursuant to order dated 29.03.2022, passed by the Circle Officer. Therefore, the said document is a post reference document. 8. Therefore, if the petitioner could pursue the proceedings for mutation of the land in her name, there was no impediment for the petitioner to pursue remedies available against the impugned opinion dated 16.05.2018. Therefore, Page No.# 5/5 having obtained mutation of the land by order dated 29.03.2022, it is not believable that the petitioner did not have the relevant land records after the mutation was allowed by order dated 29.03.2022. Therefore, obtaining of subsequent jamabandi on 17.06.2025, only appears to be after-thought and to cover-up the delay and laches to file the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the explanation by the writ petitioner for delay in approaching the Court for assailing the impugned opinion dated 16.05.2018, is not found convincing and acceptable. Therefore, on ground of delay and laches alone in assailing the impugned opinion dated 16.05.2018, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 10. Under the circumstances, there shall no orders as to cost. 11. Registry shall send back the records requisitioned from the learned Tribunal along with the copy of the order for the record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant