Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010017432025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/727/2025 BILATAN NESSA W/O- KURPAN ALI, D/O- TANU MIA, VILL.- RANGAPANI, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA (ASSAM), PIN- 781305. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST.- BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN- 781301. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(BORDER) BARPETA PIN- 781301. 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1. 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC) Page No.# 2/11 ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR BONPHOOL NAGAR GUWAHATI-32 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. T BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (Manash Ranjan Pathak J) Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.1, Union of India. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Home Department of the State and standing counsel NRC, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 6; Mr. P. Sharma, learned Senior Government advocate for respondent No. 3 and Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel, ECI, for respondent No.5. 2. Aggrieved by the opinion dated 23.10.2018 rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Foreigners Tribunal Case No. 03/2017, in a reference being made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta vide Case No. 7637(A)/ 1998, whereby the Tribunal opined that she is a foreigner of post 25-03-1971, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 27-01-2015 after more than six years three months. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by her, by the impugned opinion dated 23.10.2018 opined the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. The petitioner submitted that she on 11.01.2019 obtained the certified copy of the impugned opinion dated 23.10.2018 and being a poor woman without any source of income, only after collecting the legal expenses, came to Guwahati on 24.01.2025, contacted her advocate and filed this writ petition on 27.01.2025. 4. The Court on 14.02.2025, while issuing notice to the respondents in this case, called for the records of said FT case No. 03/2017 from the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta. We have perused Page No.# 3/11 the same. 5. It is seen from the records of the case that pursuant to the direction of the Election Commission of India, intensive revision of electoral roll for the 44 Jania Assembly Constituency in Assam with reference to 01.01.1997 as the qualifying date was processed for which house to house enumeration was done from 16.01.1997 to 15.04.1997. In that process, name of the petitioner declaring her to be an Indian citizen and also as an ordinary resident of Rangapani was enumerated for inclusion of her name in the draft electoral roll and in pursuance of that, her name was included in the draft electoral roll of said Jania LAC that was published on 24.07.1997. 6. As the concerned Electoral Registration Officer of the said LAC had some doubt with the citizenship of the petitioner, got the matter verified by an on-the-spot local verification. The concerned Local Verification Officer (LVO) pursuant to the said direction of the ERO concerned made the verification and submitted a report to the effect that the proceedee, i.e., the petitioner herein could not furnish relevant documents pertaining to recording of her name in Electoral Rolls prepared prior to 25.03.1971 nor she could place any materials to show that her name appeared in any public records like, Panchayat Register, Family Register, Refugee Register etc. 7. As such, the ERO concerned from such verification report of the LVO had reasonable doubt that the petitioner is not a citizen of India and therefore, vide No. JN-01-62/2039 dated 19.01.1998 submitted its report before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta recommending the case of the petitioner for determination as to whether she is a citizen of India or not under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder. Pursuant to the same, the Superintendent of Police (Border) Barpeta, vide Case No.7637(A) dated 21.08.1998 forwarded the matter to the Chairman, Illegal Migrants (Determination)Tribunal, Barpeta for its opinion as to whether, the petitioner is a foreigner or not under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 8. After the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, wherein their Lordships struck down the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal Act and the Rules framed thereunder being unconstitutional and the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the authorities concerned to consider all such pending cases under the said IM(D)T Act to convert those under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and to determine the nationality of those persons following the provisions of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. As the case of the petitioner that was forwarded by the SP(Border) Barpeta on 21.08.1998, was pending before the IM(D)Tribunal, Barpeta it was also converted to a proceeding Page No.# 4/11 under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). Accordingly,it was placed before the Foreigners Tribunal No.1 at Barpeta wherein it was registered as Foreigners Tribunal Case No. 03/2017. 9. The said Tribunal on 05.01.2017, issued notice to the petitioner informing her that it is alleged that she had illegally entered into the territory of Assam, India and that doubt has been raised pertaining to her Indian nationality as she failed to place any relevant documents during the enquiry that she is an Indian national. As such, the Tribunal by the said notice directed her to appear before the said Tribunal on 01.02.2017 and also directed to submit her written reply so as to prove herself to be an Indian national as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 10. The petitioner on receipt of the said notice appeared before the Tribunal on 01.02.2017 and after taking time, filed her written reply/ statement on 06.05.2017 in the said FT Case No. 03/2017. Thereafter, on 17.08.2017 she submitted her affidavit-in-evidence before the Tribunal and in the said FT Case she was cross-examined on 12.06.2018. 11. The petitioner also adduced evidence of one Sadullah Miah as DW-2 stating that he is her brother and also one Konjit Patowary, Government Gaon Burha of Village-Gojia as DW-3, who on 03.07.2018 issued a certificate, Exhibit-I, in favour of the petitioner. 12. In her written statement dated 06.05.2017 submitted before the Tribunal she denied the allegation lodged against her to be false, baseless and concocted and without proper investigation. She stated that she is a bonafide resident by birth, that name of her father is Tanu Miah, son of late Alim Uddin, a permanent resident of Village Rangapani, P.S. Barpeta, whose name was enrolled in the Voters List of 1966 at Village-Rangapani, P.S.-Barpeta under 51 Jania LAC, Part No.42, House No.16, Srl. No.46. 13. She also stated that her name figured in the Voters List of 1997 at Village-Rangapani, P.S.- Barpeta under 44 Jania LAC, Part No.107, House No. 6, Srl. No.21. She further stated that she was married to one Kurpan Ali, son of Abdul Ali of Village-Rangapani, P.S.-Barpeta and since her marriage she is residing at her matrimonial home. 14. Petitioner stated that her name was enrolled in the Voters List of 1993 at Village- Rangapani, P.S.-Barpeta under 44 Jania LAC, Part No.107, House No. 6, Srl. No.20. She further stated that her name also figured in the Voters List of 1997 at Village-Rangapani in which she was Page No.# 5/11 marked as ‘D’ (doubtful) Voter. She stated that she neither relinquished her Indian citizenship nor she acquired citizenship of other country and that she never visited any foreign country in her life. 15. To prove her citizenship, the petitioner exhibited the following documents before the Tribunal, which are — (i) Certified Copy of Voter List of 1966 of 51 No. Jania LAC relating to Village Rangapani as Exhibit-A. (ii) English translation of Assamese version of certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1970 of 51 No. Jania LAC relating to Village Rangapani as Exhibit-B. (iii) Certified Copy of Voter List of 1997 of 44 No. Jania LAC relating to Village Rangapani as Exhibit-C. (iv) Revenue receipt of Eksona Patta No.17/61 of Village Rangapani dated 27.07.1952 paid by Tanu Miah and few others as Exhibit-D. (v) Certified Copy of Voter List of 1993 of 44 No. Jania LAC relating to Village Rangapani as Exhibit-E. (vi) A certificate issued by the Secretary of 77 No. Gajia Medhirtary Gaon Panchayat dated 07.07.2015 in favour of the petitioner as Exhibit-F. (vii) Photocopy of a printed voters list of 1997 of 44 No. Jania LAC relating to Village Rangapani (Kha) as Annexure-I. (viii) Elector Photo Identity Card of one Sadullah Miya (DW-2) as Exhibit-G. (ix) Elector Photo Identity Card of one Achiya Khatun as Exhibit-H. (x) A certificate issued by the Gaon Burha of Village-Rangapani dated 02.07.2018 in favour of the petitioner as Exhibit-I. 16. During her cross examination, the petitioner before the Tribunal stated that she lives in Rangapani Village and her birth was also at Village Rangapani. She stated that her father Tanu Miah expired about 4 years back and her mother is alive. She stated that name of her mother is Asiron Nessa and she has four brothers, namely, (i) Abbas Ali, (ii) Sadullah, (iii) Jalal and (iv) Alal. 17. In his written evidence-in-chief, the DW-2 Sadullah Miah stated before the Tribunal that his father is Tanu Miah of Village-Rangapani, Mouza-Jania, P.S.-Barpeta and that the petitioner is his younger sister who was born and brought up at Village-Rangapani, Tanu Miah and Asiron Nessa @ Achia Khatun are his father and mother and Alim Uddin was his grandfather. He stated that name of his parents were enrolled in the Voters Lists of 1966 and 1970 under 51 Jania LAC from Village-Rangapani and also in the Voters List of 1997 under 44 Jania LAC from Village Page No.# 6/11 Rangapani. He stated that his father purchased a plot of land at Village- Rangapani at Patta No. 17/67 and subsequently a revenue receipt was issued to his father by the authorities concerned on 22.07.1952. He further stated that Alom Miah, Jalal Uddin, Alal Uddin are his brothers and the petitioner Bilaton Nessa, Rajia Khatun, Anowara Khatun, Milon Nessa and Abeda Khatun are his sisters. He stated that his father Tanu Miah expired four years back at Village Rangapani and his mother is still alive and that Tara Miah and Monoruddin Miah are his uncles. DW-2 stated that petitioner got married to one Kurpan Ali, son of Abdul Ali of Village Rangapani and since her marriage, she is residing permanently in the said locality. He stated that Exhibit-G is his Elector Photo Identity Card and Exhibit-H is the Elector Photo Identity Card of his mother. 18. During his cross examination, he admitted that name of his mother is different in different documents and though he submitted application, for correction of the name of his mother before the Election Office, but he did not submit copy of such application before the Tribunal. He also stated that he did not submit any document relating to land in the name of his father before the Tribunal and that name of husband of the petitioner is late Kurpan Ali. 19. Law is settled that the proceedee must disclose all the details of his/ her family members and failure to do it cause a serious doubt on the citizenship status of the proceedee. It is also settled that failure to disclose material facts in the written statement by the proceedee itself raise a serious question on the citizenship of the proceedee. The petitioner did not disclose the names of her siblings neither in her written statement nor in her evidence on affidavit. But for the first time stated about her four brothers in her oral evidence (cross) before the Tribunal. As such said oral evidence of the petitioner as well as both written and oral evidence of her projected brother DW-2 are not admissible in evidence. 20. One Kanjit Patowary, Gaon Burha of Village-Rangapani as DW-3 deposed before the Tribunal stating that he knew the petitioner, daughter of Tanu Miah and stated that her father died about four years back. He also stated that name of petitioner’s mother is Achia Khatun and that the petitioner was born at Village-Rangapani and also married at Village Rangapani. DW-3 stated that name of her husband is Kurpan Ali, who expired 2/3 years back and that the Exhibit-I is the certificate that he issued to the petitioner and Exhibit-I(i) is his signature on it. 21. During his cross, the said DW-3 Gaon Burha of Village-Rangapani stated that he became Goan Burha on 14.12.2015 and that there are about 14,000 villagers of the villages of which, he is the Gaon Burha. He stated that since 2018 February he started to maintain a Register and he Page No.# 7/11 knew the petitioner for about 6-7 years and knew her father for about 10 years. He admitted that by verifying the Voters Lists of 1966, 1970 and 1997 he had issued the certificate (Exhibit-I) in favour of the petitioner. 22. In her written statement submitted before the Tribunal on 06.05.2017, the petitioner neither named/mentioned her mother, paternal grandmother, paternal uncles and her own siblings nor stated whether her father, mother and husband were alive or not. In her written evidence-in-chief submitted before the Tribunal on 17.08.2017, the petitioner for the first time stated that name of her mother is Achiron Nessa @ Achia Khatun. But she did not mention whether her parents and husband are alive or not, nor mentioned or named about her siblings. 23. Exhibit-A exhibited by the petitioner is the Certified Copy of 1966 Voters List of 51 No. Jania LAC pertaining to Village-Rangapani containing four names, including petitioner’s projected father Tanu Miya, son of Alim Uddin. But the petitioner did not identify the remaining three persons named in the said Voter List. 24. Exhibit-B exhibited by the petitioner is the computer-generated copy of true English translation of Assamese Version of Certified Electoral Roll of 1970 Voters List of 51 No. Jania LAC pertaining to Village-Rangapani containing five names, including petitioner’s projected father Tanu Miya, son of Alim Uddin. But the petitioner did not identify the remaining five persons named in the said Voter List. Moreover, said Exhibit-B is the true English translation of Assamese Version of Certified Electoral Roll of 1970 Voters List of 51 No. Jania LAC relating to Village-Rangapani and the petitioner did not prove the said Exhibit-B before the Tribunal by adducing evidence of any authorised/competent person of 51 No. Jania LAC, as required under the law. Therefore, the said Exhibit-B exhibited by the petitioner being unproved as required under the law, is not acceptable in evidence. 25. Exhibit-C exhibited by the petitioner is the Certified Copy of 1997 Voters List of 44 No. Jania LAC pertaining to Village-Rangapani containing ten names, including petitioner’s projected father Tanu Miya, son of Alim Uddin. But the petitioner did not identify the remaining nine persons named in the said Voter List. Further, after 1966 the name of the projected father of the petitioner Tanu Miya did not figure continuously in the Voters List of Jania LAC, Rangapani Village to establish that said Tanu Miya was ordinarily resident of Assam after 1966. Petitioner failed to show existence of Tanu Miya, son of Aalim Uddin in Indian soil after 1966. Voters List of 1966 relating to 51 No. Jania LAC of Village-Rangapani Exhibit-A figured one Tany Miya, son of Alim Page No.# 8/11 Uddin, aged about 40 years, thereby his birth year would be 1926. But the Voters List 1997 relating to 44 No. Jania LAC of Village-Rangapani Exhibit-C figures one Tany Miya, son of Alimuddin, not Alim Uddin as shown in the Voters List of 1966, aged about 70 years, which shows that his birth year would be 1927. When a document is exhibited by a proceedee relying upon it to show his/her parentage, it has to be accepted as a whole and not in parts or fractions, that is suitable or beneficial or apposite of the proceedee. Moreover, Exhibit-C is a document of post 25.03.1971. 26. Exhibit-D exhibited by the petitioner is a revenue receipt dated 27.07.1952 of the years 1389, 1390 and 1391 relates to Eksaniya land (Annual Settlement/ Annual Patta land) at Village Rangapani paid on behalf of four persons including one Tanu Miya, but paid by other persons. Petitioner in her written statement did not mention about any land of her projected father. In her written evidence-in-affidavit she only stated that her father possessed a plot of land at Village- Rangapani, pertaining which Exhibit-D was issued, but she did not state as to whether her said projected father continued to possess said Annual Settlement/Annual Patta land or not nor she produced any upto date revenue receipt of said land in the name of her said father. She neither stated about the status of the said land nor she stated about the schedule and area of said land. By the said Exhibit-D petitioner failed to show her linkage with said Tanu Miya, her projected father. 27. The petitioner did not specify the said land at Village-Rangapani, like the area of land - bigha/katha/lecha, dag no., patta no., class of land, lot No., mouza, circle, sub-division and district etc. Petitioner did not state as to how said Tanu Miya procured the said eksona land at Village- Rangapani and the present status of the said land of Tanu Miya after 25.07.1952. It is settled that mere producing or adducing a revenue receipt of a particular land for a particular period, a proceedee cannot prove his/her linkage with his/her projected father and grandfather to be in Indian soil in the year 1952 without showing their continuous residence in Assam (India) up to 1971 and thereafter. 28. Exhibit-E is the Certified Copy of 1993 Voters List of 44 No. Jania LAC pertaining to Village-Rangapani containing the name of the petitioner by which she was shown to be the wife of Kurpan and it did not prove her linkage with her projected father Tanu Miya of Village- Rangapani under Jania LAC. 29. Exhibit-F is the certificate of the Secretary of 77 No. Gajia Medhirtary Gaon Panchayat Page No.# 9/11 issued on 07.07.2015 exhibited by the petitioner before the Tribunal is not admissible in evidence to prove her linkage with her projected father, Tany Miya of Village-Rangapani as the said document was not proved either by adducing the evidence of the author of the said certificate or by adducing any contemporaneous record. 30. Further, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupajan Begum Vs. The Union of India and Others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579, Certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary and/or President is not a proof of citizenship but it merely acknowledges shifting of residence of a married woman from one place to another. Moreover, such Certificate of Secretary or President of Gaon Panchayat was allowed to be used as a supporting document to establish as linkage with the parent of the certificate holder if accompanied by Legacy Data that too only for inclusion in up-dation of NRC. As such said Exhibit-F adduced by the petitioner has no evidentiary value for its consideration as a Link Certificate for her linkage with her projected father Tany Miya. 31. Annexure-I adduced by the petitioner before the Tribunal being a photocopy of a printed voter list of 1997 of 44 No. Jania LAC relating to Village-Rangapani reflecting the name of the petitioner has no evidentiary value. Moreover, in said Annexure-I, petitioner was shown to be the wife of one Korban Ali. 32. Exhibits - G and H are the Elector Photo Identity Cards of Sadullah Miya son of Tanu Miya (DW-2) and Achiya Khatun, wife of Tanu Miya, projected brother and mother of the petitioner. The DW-2 did not prove those EPICs, which are post 25.03.1971 documents. It is settled that merely producing such Identity Cards in the absence of supporting evidence would not be proof of citizenship. Further, the evidence-in-chief as well as oral evidence of DW-2 Sadullh Miya, projected brother of the petitioner, have already found to be not admissible in the present case, as noted above. 33. Exhibit-I is the certificate dated 02.07.2018 issued by the Gaon Burha (DW-3) of Village- Rangapani in favour of the petitioner exhibited by the petitioner as link document with her projected father Tanu Miya of Village-Rangapani. It can be seen from the said Exhibit-I, the certificate issued by the Gaon Burha of Rangapani Village contains the State Emblem of India. As been held in the case of Sultana Begum Vs. The Union of India and 3 Others, WP(C) 7115/2016, decided on 20.11.2018, said Exhibit-I exhibited by the petitioner before the Tribunal is not admissible in evidence to prove her linkage with her projected father, Tanu Miya of Village- Page No.# 10/11 Rangapani. Moreover, as noted above, the DW-3, the Gaon Burha of Village-Rangapani in his deposition admitted that he issued the said certificate Exhibit-I considering the Voters Lists of 1966, 1970 and 1997, where 1970 Voters List, i.e. Exhibit-B is only a computer-generated copy of true English translation of Assamese Version of Certified Electoral Roll of 1970 Voters List of 51 No. Jania LAC pertaining to Village-Rangapani which the petitioner did not prove before the Tribunal by adducing evidence of any authorised/competent person of Jania LAC, as required under the law. 1997 Voters List, Exhibit-C is a post 25.03.1971 document. It is seen that the DW- 3, the Gaon Burha of Village-Rangapani issued the said Exhibit-I certificate on 02.07.2018 in favour of the petitioner which is not on any contemporaneous records and he did not prove it by adducing any record. For such reasons, said Exhibit-I is not admissible in any evidence. 34. From the above it is seen that the petitioner failed to prove her linkage with Tanu Miya as her father, whose name figured in the Voters list of Janiya LAC in the year 1966. 35. Moreover, said Tanu Miya of Village-Rangapani is also a non-existent after 1966 prior to the year 1997 in Indian soil. 36. Annexure-10 of this writ petition is a photocopy of a printed voter list of 1989 of 44 No. Jania LAC relating to Village-Rangapani and it was not placed and/or exhibited before the Tribunal. 37. Similarly, Annexure-11 of this writ petition, Jamabandi of Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 51, Dag Nos. 29 and 260 of Village-Rangapani of Lot No. 8, Mouza Jania, Revenue Circle-Baghbar, Sub- Division Barpeta, District-Barpeta was not exhibited by the petitioner before the Tribunal. As noted above petitioner in her written statement did not state of any land of her projected father Tanu Miya and also not named her mother and her siblings. The petitioner did not specify any land of her projected father Tanu Miya at Village-Rangapani, like the area of land - bigha/katha/lessa, dag no., patta no., class of land, lot No., mouza, circle, sub-division and district etc. and also did not state as to how said Tanu Miya procured any such eksona land at Village- Rangapani. 38. It is settled that by producing a Jamabandi a proceedee cannot climb the ladder of lineage to reach the projected father showing her name figured in the said Jamabandi because a mutation entry in the Jamabandi is the record of right in respect of particular plot of land and it does not require any proof of citizenship of the person seeking mutation [Jamela Begum Vs. Page No.# 11/11 Union of India and others, WP(C) No. 1817/2020]. 39. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering all the materials on record, we are of the view that the impugned opinion dated 23.10.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners TribunalNo.1, Barpeta, Assam in Foreigners Tribunal Case No. 03/2017, by which the petitioner was opined to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, does not call for any interference in exercise of the power of Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, petitioner has also failed to place any valid reasons of her approaching this Court after more than six years three months of the impugned opinion. 40. For the reasons above, this writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 41. Registry shall return the records of Foreigners Tribunal Case No. 03/2017 to the Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Barpeta, Assam forthwith, along with a copy of this Order. 42. Registry shall also forward a copy of this Order to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, for its information and necessary use. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant