JUDGMENT : Shamima Jahan, J. Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, and Mr N Kalita, learned counsel representing Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI. 2. By this application filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the opinion dated 05.10.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 7, Dhubri, at Bilasipara, in FT 7th Dhubri Case No. 54/CPR/16, corresponding to FT No. 368/CPR/11, whereby the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream. FACTS 3. The petitioner has stated that his grandfather’s name is Late Johir Uddin Sk. @ Johir Uddin and that his name appeared in the voters’ list of 1959 vide Serial No. 73, House No. 18 at Village Mashaneralga, under 36 Bilasipara Assembly Constituency. Thereafter, in the year 1966 as well as in the year 1970, his grandfather’s name had appeared in the voters’ list of the said years vide Serial No. 10, House No. 4 and vide Serial No. 11, House No. 2, respectively, at Village- Suapata Part-II, under the aforesaid Assembly Constituency. It is stated that his grandfather shifted his residence to the aforesaid locality, which is a neighbouring village. 4. The petitioner, thereafter stated that his father and his mother, namely, Abdul Jalil and Abeda Begum filled up electoral form on 22.04.1993, wherein it is reflected that petitioner’s father is the son of Late Johir Uddin Sk. and that both the grandfathers and the father’s name of the petitioner appeared in the voters’ list of 1997, vide Serial No. 358 and 362, respectively, in House No. 156 at Village-Suapata Part-I of Dhubri district. It is also stated by the petitioner that his father expired in the year 2010 and that till his father’s death, his name, i.e., his father’s name was enlisted in the voters’ list. To further establish the linkage, the petitioner has relied on the family identity card, issued by the Government, which reflected the name of the father of the petitioner as son of Johir Uddin. Apart therefrom, he had also relied on the certificate issued by the Secretary of Mashaneralga Gaon Panchayat, certifying his father as son of Johir Uddin. To further establish the linkage, the petitioner has relied on the family identity card, issued by the Government, which reflected the name of the father of the petitioner as son of Johir Uddin. Apart therefrom, he had also relied on the certificate issued by the Secretary of Mashaneralga Gaon Panchayat, certifying his father as son of Johir Uddin. The petitioner also relied upon the bank account maintained with the UCO Bank by his father, wherein his father was shown to be the son of Johir Uddin. Further, a land holding certificate dated 29.05.2013 issued by the Circle Officer, Bilasipara Revenue Circle was also relied upon to give effect to the fact that his father is the son of Johir Uddin. Furthermore, the petitioner also relied on a certificate issued by the Headmaster of Mashaneralga L P School, which disclosed that the petitioner is the son of Abdul Jalil. 5. The petitioner further stated that in the year 2006, the petitioner shifted to Village Siberdhabri from Village-Suapata and that he submitted his enrollment form but the ERO put ‘D’ against his name. It be stated here that pursuant thereto, an investigation is conducted by the Enquiry Officer and submitted to the ERO, who in turn, forwarded the report to the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, who had then made the reference to the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Dhubri as ‘D’ Voter case. The learned Tribunal registered the said case and issued notice to which the petitioner who appeared and submitted his written statement and produced documents in support of his citizenship. 6. In the said written statement, the petitioner stated, inter alia, that he is the son of Abdul Jalil and grandson of Johir Uddin Sk and that the name of his grandfather was inserted in the voters’ list of 1959, vide Serial No. 73, House No. 18 by the enumerator of election process at Village – Mashaneralga (Suapata Part-II) in the district of Dhubri. He also stated that his grandfather appeared as a voter in the voters’ list of 1966 in the same district. Similarly, in 1970, he stated that the name of his grandfather was inserted in the voters’ list. He also stated that his grandfather appeared as a voter in the voters’ list of 1966 in the same district. Similarly, in 1970, he stated that the name of his grandfather was inserted in the voters’ list. The petitioner, thereafter, stated that due to erosion of river his grandfather shifted to Suapata Part-I and got his name inserted in the voters’ list of 1997 and that in the same year, the petitioner’s name was also inserted as a voter. He further stated that the petitioner studied at Mashaneralga Primary Vidyalaya and left the school in 1992, for which a certificate was issued and in the said certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 26.02.1984. He also stated that his father shifted to Siberdhabri from Suapata Part-I and got his name enlisted in the voters’ list, but he was marked as ‘D’ Voter in the said list and further that the father of his grandfather was known by different names and that he is one and the same person. 7. On 26.07.2016, the petitioner had submitted an additional written statement by stating, inter alia, about the Green Card issued to his father, certificate issued by the Secretary, Gaon Panchayat, the name of the petitioner appearing with his mother in the voters’ list of 1993, the Bank account held by his father with the UCO Bank as well as the land holding certificate issued to his father. 8. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted the evidence on affidavit as DW-1, wherein he stated similar statements as was written in his written statement and further stated that a Green Card was issued to his father by mentioning further that he is the son of Johir Uddin by the authorities in the Food and Civil Supplies Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was questioned by the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, on 10.08.2016, wherein the petitioner replied that his grandfather had five brothers although he had not submitted any documents with regard to the same and that his father had three brothers to which also, he had not submitted any documents. 9. The petitioner had also produced DW-2, i.e., his uncle as a witness from his side and DW-2, in his evidence had stated that he is the uncle of the petitioner, i.e., the petitioner’s father’s brother. 9. The petitioner had also produced DW-2, i.e., his uncle as a witness from his side and DW-2, in his evidence had stated that he is the uncle of the petitioner, i.e., the petitioner’s father’s brother. This witness stated that his father Johir Uddin Sk was a voter in the years 1959, 1966, 1970, and that after his father shifted his residence, his father’s name was enumerated in the voters’ list of 1997. He also stated about the school certificate issued to the petitioner and about the Green Card issued to the father of the petitioner and as well as the certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat together with the Bank account held by the father of the petitioner and the land holding certificate issued to the father of the petitioner. This witness was questioned by the learned Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, wherein he stated that he did not know the year of birth of the petitioner and that he had adduced evidence relying on the documents submitted by the petitioner. 10. Further, the Branch Manager of the UCO Bank, concerned Branch was examined as DW-3 and he stated that as per record, the account being Account No. 1256/8 was opened in the name of Abdul Jalil, i.e., the projected father of the petitioner and while answering the question put by the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, he stated that the said account was opened in the year 1997. 11. Furthermore, the Election Assistant E.O. of Bilasipara, was examined as DW-4 and he stated that Exhibit-A, B and D are the certified copies of the voters’ list meant for the year 1959, 1966 and 1997, respectively, which were issued from the Election Office, Bilasipara. 12. Thereafter, an Inspector of FCS & CA, Bilasipara, was examined as DW No. 5, who initially stated that he was authorized to appear on behalf of the Superintendent,FCS & CA, Bilasipara, but later he stated that he is not Dipak Kumar Pator, who has been authorized to appear and that neither he was entrusted with any record. 13. 12. Thereafter, an Inspector of FCS & CA, Bilasipara, was examined as DW No. 5, who initially stated that he was authorized to appear on behalf of the Superintendent,FCS & CA, Bilasipara, but later he stated that he is not Dipak Kumar Pator, who has been authorized to appear and that neither he was entrusted with any record. 13. Furthermore, the Head Teacher of Mashaneralga was examined as DW-6, who was produced to prove the school certificate, i.e., Exhibit-E and he stated that he knew the petitioner personally as well as his father and that he did not have any doubts about the certificate issued by the then Head Teacher. On the questions put by the Tribunal under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, he answered to the effect that Exhibit-E was not issued by him and that he cannot prove the contents of the said certificate from the school admission register, since the same is not legible. 14. The petitioner submitted the following documents which were exhibited in the Tribunal:- i) Exhibit-A, voters’ list of 1959 ii) Exhibit-B, voters’ list of 1966 iii) Exhibit-C, voters’ list of 1970 iv) Exhibit-D, voters’ list of 1997 v) Exhibit-E, school certificate issued by the Head Teacher of Mashaneralga L P School vi) Exhibit-F, Green Card issued to the father of the petitioner vii) Exhibit-G, Certificate issued by the Secretary of Mashaneralga Gaon Panchayat. viii) Exhibit-H, Application by the father and mother of the petitioner to get their names enlisted in voters’ list of 1993. ix) Exhibit-I, the bank account maintained by the father of the petitioner. x) Exhibit-J, the land holding certificate issued to the father of the petitioner 15. The learned Trial Court considered the said written statement as well as the documents submitted and rendered the finding that the petitioner could not establish the necessary linkage to his grandfather as well as his father and on reasonings given, decided the reference in affirmative and declared the petitioner as a foreigner. The main grounds on which the Tribunal decided the case are as follows:- i) The school certificate relied on by the petitioner that he is the son of Abdul Jalil failed to prove the contents of the same. The main grounds on which the Tribunal decided the case are as follows:- i) The school certificate relied on by the petitioner that he is the son of Abdul Jalil failed to prove the contents of the same. Although the petitioner examined the Head Teacher of the School as DW-6, who is not the issuing authority of the certificate, the said witness stated before the Court that he cannot prove the contents of the certificate as it was found illegible from the school admission register. ii) DW-2, who is alleged to be the uncle of the petitioner stated during his testimony that he knows the proceedee since his birth, but on being questioned by the Court, he deposed that he did not know the year of birth of the petitioner. iii) Exhibits-A, B, C and D, which were voters’ lists for the year- 1959, 1966, 1970 and 1997 were stated to have not established the linkage required, as the petitioner could not prove with reliable and trustworthy link documents. Further, the petitioner could not place the voters’ list of other family members along with his grandfather and father, the members whom he had deposed during examination by the Tribunal. iv) Exhibit-F, a copy of the Green Card issued to A Jalil, theprojected father of the petitioner by Food and Civil Supplies Department also could not help the petitioner’s cause, inasmuch, as DW No. 5, had in his evidence, deposed that he was not the authorized person to depose before the Court. v) Exhibit-G, the photocopy of the Panchayat Certificate was also not proved. vi) Exhibit-H, the application before the Electoral Officer, being a post-1971 document and which has also not been proved cannot be relevant to determine the citizenship. Similar is the case with Exhibit-I, which is again a post-1971 document, and which could not be proved. These are the principal grounds on which the learned Tribunal answered the reference in affirmative. SUBMISSIONS: 16. Mr H R Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1959, the grandfather of the petitioner was enlisted as a voter in the voters’ list of the said year and that subsequently, in the voters’ list of 1966, the name of the grandfather appeared as the voter for the said year. SUBMISSIONS: 16. Mr H R Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1959, the grandfather of the petitioner was enlisted as a voter in the voters’ list of the said year and that subsequently, in the voters’ list of 1966, the name of the grandfather appeared as the voter for the said year. The learned counsel relied on the green card issued by the authorities in the Food and Civil Supplies , wherein the petitioner’s father was stated to be son of Johir Uddin and the said card was stated to have been proved by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, who was examined as DW No. 5, and who stated that he was serving as the Inspector and that he had been authorized by the Superintendent FCS & CA, to appear on his behalf before the Court,although in the later part of his statement, he denied his identity as being authorized by the said Superintendent. The learned counsel further fairly submitted that the certificate issued by the Secretary of the Mashaneralga Gaon Panchayat, certifying that his father is the son of Johir Uddin, cannot be, however, relied upon since the said certificate contained the national emblem on the top of the same and he had also fairly submitted that the author was also not examined. He then relied upon the bank account of his father, which is maintained with the UCO Bank and which was proved by the Branch Manager, who was examined as DW No. 3. He had also placed the query put by Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, wherein the said witness had stated that the account was opened in the year 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the land holding certificate, which was in the name of his father, namely Md Abdul Jalil, who is also stated to be the son of Johir Uddin. The said certificate was stated to have been proved in original. He also relied on the school certificate issued by the Headmaster, wherein it is stated that he is son of Abdul Jalil and that he had left his school in the year 1992 and that he was born on 26.02.1984. He also relied on the statement of DW-2, who is stated to be the uncle of the petitioner. These were the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also relied on the statement of DW-2, who is stated to be the uncle of the petitioner. These were the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for FT and Border matters, Mr G Sarma submits that there has been a gap of 27 years ,i.e., from 1970 to 1997 that the petitioner had not furnished the voters’ list of his family members. He also stated that the certificate issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat was also not reliable for two reasons, one being the same was furnished on a page containing the national emblem and the other being the Secretary, was not examined. He also submitted that the Head teacher of the LP School in his deposition, stated that he cannot prove the contents of the certificate, i.e., Exhibit-E from the school admission register since the same was not readable. He also stated that the Green Card relied on by the petitioner is like the Ration Card, in respect of which there are decisions of this Court, stating the same as not reliable, moreso, in absence of the date as to when it was issued. In respect of the Bank passbook, the learned counsel submitted that it was post-1971 document and the same cannot establish the linkage of the petitioner with his family members. He further stated that if the school certificate and the Panchayat Certificate are left out of consideration, there is no link of the petitioner to his grandfather and father. To substantiate his arguments, he relied on the following decisions:- i) The judgment delivered in WP(C) No. 6871 of 2016 dated 29.03.2018, in respect of Abdul Sk –vs- Union of India, wherein this Court had held the necessity of obtaining a certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Actin proving an electronic document. ii) BijoyDas -vs- UOI, reported in 2018 (3) GLT 118, wherein this Court had held that facts narrated by the petitioner has to be proved. iii) Nur Begum –vs- Union of India, reported in 2020 (3) GLT 347, wherein this Court held that non-production of any voters’ list prior to petitioner’s reaching the age of 50 was considered as an adverse effect in the proceeding. iii) Nur Begum –vs- Union of India, reported in 2020 (3) GLT 347, wherein this Court held that non-production of any voters’ list prior to petitioner’s reaching the age of 50 was considered as an adverse effect in the proceeding. iv) The judgment delivered in WP(C) No. 114 of 2018(Puspa Rani Dhar -Vs- Union of India), dated 10.11.2021, by which this Court held that in order to prove a case under the Foreigners’ Act, clinching evidence is required. vi) Khudeja Khatun –vs- Union of India, reported in 2018 (3) GLT 347, by which this Court has emphasized in improper use of national emblem. vii) Saru Sk vs Union of India , reported in 2017 (4) GLR 295 wherein this Court held that discrepancies in age, place of voting etc., become fatal in a given circumstance. These are the submissions of the learned counsel for the FT and Border matters. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 18. It is a settled position of law that in order to prove linkage under the Foreigners Act, 1946, an individual must establish a direct blood line connection  to an Indian ancestor whose name appears in documents prior to 25th of March, 1971, and under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946, the burden of proof rests entirely on the proceedee requiring documented evidence like voters’ lists, land records etc. It is also a settled position of law that oral testimony in such cases is not enough to bring home the requirement of proving the citizenship. As far as Exhibit-A is concerned wherein the petitioner has demonstrated that his grandfather had appeared as a voter in 1959, this Court, on verification finds that the projected grandfather of the petitioner appeared alone in the said voters’ list and in connection with Serial No. 73 and House No. 18, for Village- Mashaneralga, PS-Bilasipara, Sub-Division- Dhubri. The petitioner had also placed the voters’ list of 1966, wherein the projected grandfather of the petitioner appeared as a voter, that too, singly and was assigned Serial No. 10 with House No. 4 and the village mentioned was Suapata Part-II of Dhubri Sub- Division and the said voters’ list was exhibited as Exhibit-B and in the next voters’ list of 1970, exhibited as Exhibit-C, the projected grandfather of the petitioner was arrayed as a voter in respect of the same village, but the house number assigned was 2. In these voters’ lists, one striking discrepancy is observed in respect of house numbers as well as the place of voting. Although in the written statement, it was stated that due to erosion of river, the projected grandfather of the petitioner shifted to Suapata Part-I from Suapata Part-II, but the time of shifting is not mentioned and further it was stated in the written statement that after the shifting the projected grandfather of the petitioner got his name inserted in the voters’ list of 1997 with his family members. However, it is noticed that alleged shifting was done before 1966. 19. After 1970, the petitioner had not produced any voters’ list and that after 27 years, the petitioner placed the voters’ list of 1997 and the same was exhibited as Exhibit-D. The said voters’ list reflected the name of the projected grandfather and the projected father of the petitioner,at Serial No. 358 and 361, respectively, and the house number mentioned was H. No. 156. However, the place of voting had a difference to the effect that it was 284 Suapata Part-I, whereas earlier it was 285 Suapata Part-II. It was never pleaded by the petitioner that his projected grandfather along with his family had returned to Suapata Part-I after 1970. There is also discrepancy in the age mentioned with regard to the projected grandfather in the various voters’ lists. 19.1 The petitioner had relied on the certificate issued by the school authorities on 08.03.2005, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was the son of Abdul Jalil and that he left his school, i.e., Mashaneralga L P School after passing his Class-III Examination and that the date of birth of the petitioner was 26.02.1984. However, it is seen that the said certificate had a national emblem which makes the certificate inadmissible in law. However, the contents of the same can be proved by examining the issuing authority. The petitioner had examined one Abdul Aziz Miya, who was the Head Teacher in the year 2016, whereas it is seen that the issuing authority was one Motiar Rahman. DW No. 6, who was examined to prove the said school certificate stated that although he had no doubts regarding the same, but he could not prove the contents of the said certificate from the school admission register as it was illegible. DW No. 6, who was examined to prove the said school certificate stated that although he had no doubts regarding the same, but he could not prove the contents of the said certificate from the school admission register as it was illegible. Therefore, the said certificate is also not of any help to the petitioner. 20. Further, the green card, issued to the father of the petitioner,which is Exhibit-F, cannot again help the petitioner, inasmuch, as the Inspector FCS & CA, Bilasipara, who was examined as DW No. 5, denied the fact that he was authorized by the Superintendent, FCS & CA, to appear on his behalf. He, in fact, denied that he was Dipak Kumar Pator, Inspector, FC and CA, Bilasipara. In view of the said, the Green Card cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. Further, as has been stated by the learned counsel for FT matter that the same being in the nature of ration card cannot be made an evidence, in view of the absence of date and for not proving the contents of the same. 21. Similarly, the certificate issued by the Secretary of Mashaneralga Gaon Panchayat was produced but the author of the said certificate, i.e., the Secretary was not called as a witness for his examination before the Tribunal. The said certificate was exhibited as Exhibit-G. Another flaw in the certificate is that an emblem was present therein which makes it inadmissible in law. 22. The Bank account maintained by the projected father of the petitioner exhibited as Exhibit-I together with the examination of the Branch Manager of the said Bank cannot again establish the link of the petitioner with his projected father. Similarly, the land holding certificate issued in the name of the projected father of the petitioner also cannot establish the link of the petitioner with his projected father. 23. Therefore, it is seen that although the petitioner submitted the aforesaid documents, none of those were proved in accordance with law, neither the linkage was established with his father or grandfather. The petitioner could not produce any voters’ list wherein he and his father or mother were enlisted as voters in the same list. In absence of the same, by no stretch of reasoning, it can be said that the petitioner is the son of Abdul Jalil or the grandson of Johir Uddin Sk. The petitioner could not produce any voters’ list wherein he and his father or mother were enlisted as voters in the same list. In absence of the same, by no stretch of reasoning, it can be said that the petitioner is the son of Abdul Jalil or the grandson of Johir Uddin Sk. The only recourse the petitioner took were to the certificates issued by the school authority, certificate issued by the Secretary, Gaon Panchayat, the Green Card, the Bank Account maintained by his father, but as has been seen above, the contents of the said certificateswere never proved, rather there were statements by few witnesses, which had the effect of demolishing the contents of the said documents. 24. Law on this aspect is very clear. In Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, MANU/SC/0862/2003: (2003) 8 SCC 745 , Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that marking of documents as exhibits and their proof are two different legal concepts. Mere production and marking of a document as exhibit cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence i.e., by the evidence of those persons who can vouch safe for the truth of the facts in issue. 25. This proposition was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in L.I.C. vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, MANU/SC/0170/2010: (2010) 4 SCC 491 wherein it has been held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof; in other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof which is required to be done in accordance with law. Under the law of evidence, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its veracity. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court. Such a document cannot be relied upon. CONCLUSIONS 26 . As the primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners’ Act and the Foreigners’ (Tribunal) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not, the relevant facts being specially within the knowledge of the proceedee, .the burden of proving citizenship, rest upon the proceedee notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872. As the primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners’ Act and the Foreigners’ (Tribunal) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not, the relevant facts being specially within the knowledge of the proceedee, .the burden of proving citizenship, rest upon the proceedee notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872. In the instant case and as observed above, the petitioner not only failed to discharge the burden but had also utterly failed to make proof of almost all the documents, i.e., in establishing linkage to her projected parents, projected grandparents. 27 . On the available materials, we find that the learned Tribunal rendered the opinion upon due appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and documents brought on record. We would also like to observe herein that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal although for the ends of justice, some exercise has been done to the said effect. We are, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, of the opinion that impugned order dated 05.10.2016, passed by the learned  Foreigners’ Tribunal-No. 7, Dhubri at Bilasipara, in FT 7th Dhubri Case No. 54/CPR/16, corresponding to FT Case No. 368/CPR/11 (‘D’ Voter Case No. 2299/D/08), does not call for any interference and the instant writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 28. The actions consequent upon the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal would follow in accordance with law. 29. The records of the aforesaid FT Case be returned to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal-No. 7, Dhubri at Bilasipara, forthwith, along with a copy of this order.