JUDGMENT : Shamima Jahan, J. Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Dutta, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, for the State respondents, and Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, for the FT matters and NRC. 2. By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the opinion dated 29.06.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal-II, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Lakhimpur FT-II Case No. 739 of 2007 (DIST. No. 174 of 2007), by which the petitioner was declared as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. FACTS: 3. The petitioner/proceedee in the instant petition has stated that her parents reside at Rupahigaon, Lakhimpur and that her parents had six number of children and she is among one of them. She further stated that her grandfather’s name is Adhir Chandra Sinha @ Adhir Sinha, son of Godur and her grandmother’s name was Malati Sinha, who she stated to have died in 2009. She stated that her grandparents’ name appeared in the voters’ list of 1966 at Serial No. 219 and 220 under Dhakuakhana 114 LAC. She further stated that her grandfather possessed a plot of land under Police Station-Dhakuakhana and that the same was mutated in his name. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioner had annexed the revenue receipts which showed that after the death of her grandfather, her father was paying the revenue for the said land. Thereafter, she stated that her grandfather appeared in the voters’ list of 1970 at Serial No. 193 and that in 2005, the petitioner along with her parents were enlisted for voting and further that the petitioner had voted vide voters’ list in 2009 and 2019. The petitioner has also relied in order to establish her citizenship on the transfer certificate issued in favour of her father by the Headmaster of Chakuli M.V.School, wherein it was reflected that the father of the petitioner was studying in Class-V and that he left the said school on 31.12.1971. The said certificate also reflected that the date of birth of her father was on 01.01.1958. The said certificate also reflected that the date of birth of her father was on 01.01.1958. The petitioner has also relied on a certificate issued by the Education Department wherein it was certified that the petitioner, daughter of Ahiram Sinha, was studying in Class-IV at Puronikathoni Prathamik Vidyalaya and that she passed her annual examination in 2001 and further that, her date of birth was recorded in the admission register as 25.02.1991. To further establish her identity, the petitioner relied on the Elector Photo Identity Card possessed by her grandfather, her father, Abhiram Singh, son of Adhir Singh as well as her, i.e., the petitioner, issued by the “Election Commission of India”. The petitioner has also relied on the certificate issued by the office of the Secretary, Deolia Gaon Panchayat, certifying that she is the daughter of Abhiram Sinha and Kanan Rani Sinha, resident of Village Rupahi, Deolia under Subhansiri Revenue Circle of Lakhimpur District and that she is aged 28 years on the date of issuing of the certificate, i.e., 24.06.2015 and that she is married on 04.09.2007 to one Sri Rajib Sinha, son of Pradip Sinha and Smt Prabharani Sinha, who are residents of the same village and Gaon Panchayat, i.e., Rupahi village and Gaon Panchayat and that the petitioner by virtue of marriage, shifted to Rupahi Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner had also annexed the birth certificate of her children, i.e., two sons who were stated to have been born on 31.01.2006 and 06.07.2008. The petitioner had also stated that she submitted the NRC form with documents and that she received the application receipt issued by the authorities. 4. However, on the basis of a Police Enquiry Report, expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, under Paragraph-2 of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, vide District Case No. 174 of 2007, referred the case of the petitioner, namely, Smt Benubala Sinha, daughter of Sri Abhiram Sinha, wife of Sri Pranay Sinha (sic), resident of Village- Rupahigaon, Police Station- Ghilamara, District- Lakhimpur, Assam, to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, with a prayer to decide as to whether the petitioner was a citizen of India or a foreigner. Subsequently, notice was issued to the petitioner in the given address, but the same was not served and although the case was registered in 2009, the same was filed on 26.02.2010. Subsequently, notice was issued to the petitioner in the given address, but the same was not served and although the case was registered in 2009, the same was filed on 26.02.2010. Thereafter, the case was again revived in 2019, and after service of the notice, the petitioner had filed her written statement along with copies of relevant documents. 5. In the said written statement, the petitioner stated that her grandparents were enlisted in the voters’ list of 1966 of 114 No. Dhakuakhana Legislative Constituency. She also stated that her grandfather was paying the revenue for a plot of land owned by him, i.e., 1 No. Sakulimap Dag No. 32 for the years 1966-1967, 1971-1972, and that her father had paid the revenue for the said land for the year- 2001-2002, on 07.11.2001. She also stated that her grandfather’s actual name was Adhir Chandra Sinha, but, w.e.f. 2009 voters’ list and in other documents, the name of her grandfather was recorded as Adhir Sinha and that Adhir Chandra Sinha and Adhir Sinha is one and the same person. She further stated that same is in respect of her grandmother, whose actual name was Malati Devi Sinha, but w.e.f. voters’ list of 2009, her name was recorded as Malati Devi, wife of Adhir Sinha, and as such, she states Malati Devi Sinha and Malati Devi is one and the same person. She stated that in the voters’ list of 2009, her father’s name was recorded at Serial No. 445, her mother’s name was recorded at Serial No. 446, her brother’s name Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha was placed at Serial No. 447, her sister’s name Mithila Sinha was placed at Serial No. 448 and her name was placed at Serial No. 449, at 112 Dhakuakhana LAC. She further stated that the Voter ID card has been issued to her grandfather, her father and herself, by the Election Commission of India. She also stated that although she was married with Sri Rajib Sinha about 14 years ago, on the date of filing of the written statement, her name was not enlisted with her husband, but was enlisted with her paternal family and that in the notice issued by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, her husband’s name was wrongly written as Pranay Sinha, who was the brother of her husband. 6. 6. Along with the said written statement, the petitioner had placed the following documents, which were exhibited as Exhibit Nos. 1 to 12, and the list is reproduced below: “Exhibit-1: 1966 voter list Exhibit- 2: Revenue receipt of 1966-67 Exhibit-3: Revenue receipt of 1971-72 Exhiibit-4: Revenue receipt of 2001-02 Exhibit-5: Voter List of 2009 her grandfather Sri Adhir Singha Exhibit-6: Electors photo identity Card Sri Adhir Singha Exhibit-7: Voter List of 2009 of the opposite party Sri Benubala Singha. Exhibit-8 : Voter List of 2019 of the opposite party Sri Benubala Singha. Exhibit-9: Electors photo identity card of the opposite party. Exhibit:10: Electors photo identity card of Sri Abhiram Singha, i.e,., the opposite party’s father. Exhibit:11: Birth certificate of Sri Rajesh Kumar Singha. Exhibit : 12: Certificate issued by the Government Gaonburah. 7. Thereafter, on 18.06.2019, the petitioner had submitted her evidence on affidavit, wherein she had stated similar statements as she had stated in her written statement to the effect that her grand parents appeared as voters in 1966 and that her grandfather had paid revenue in respect of the land owned and possessed by him at Dhakuakhana within the state of Assam and after the death of her grandfather, her father had paid the revenue. She had also stated that in 2009 voters’ list, she appeared along with her parents and brothers. She had also stated that voters’ identity card and certificate by the Gaon Panchayat were issued in her favour, showing that she is the daughter of Sri Abhiram Sinha. The petitioner was cross-examined at length, wherein she reiterated that her grandfather was aged 35 years when he voted in 1966. She, thereafter, stated that names of her grandparents should have been present in 1971 voters’ list, but the petitioner could not submit the relevant documents. She further stated that after 1966, the voters’ list of 2009 was submitted, wherein her grandfather’s and grandmother’s names were reflected who were aged 84 and 77 years respectively, and she further states that from 1966 to 2009, there is no evidence on record that the grandparents had voted in the intervening period. Thereafter, she stated that her grandfather’s name, son of Godhur Sinha, aged about 87 years in the year 2013 is shown in the revenue receipt. Thereafter, she stated that her grandfather’s name, son of Godhur Sinha, aged about 87 years in the year 2013 is shown in the revenue receipt. She further stated that apart from the voters’ list of 2009, her parents’ names did not appear in any other voters’ list and that in 2019 voters’ list, the petitioner’s name was shown singly without her husband’s name or her father’s name. She also stated that there are evidence showing her father as the son of Adhir Sinha. She further stated that there is no evidence to show that she and her husband lived together either at Dhakuakhana or Ghilamara and that the birth certificate of father is also not placed and that her father had one brother, namely, Biswa Sinha, who stays at Rupohi Village and that her father had four sisters, amongst whom, two of them were married and the remaining two stayed at their father’s place. She also stated that she had five brothers and sisters, amongst whom, one brother is named as Ashok Kumar Sinha and that all her brothers and sisters stayed at Rupohi Village and that she had first voted in 2009 and there is no evidence that she voted earlier. She further stated that she got married to one Rajib Sinha of the same village in the year 2005, and that her husband did not have his own land or house and that she also has no evidence to show that he is from State of Assam. 8. With these evidences on record, the petitioner contested her case before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal. 9. The learned Foreigners’ Tribunal considered the case of the petitioner along with the documents she submitted which were exhibited as such and vide its opinion dated 29.06.2019, had rejected the case of the petitioner by declaring her as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, mainly on the following grounds:- i) The petitioner could not prove that she is living permanently at Dhakuakhana or Ghilamara. ii) The petitioner could not produce her birth certificate as well as her father. iii) The father and grandfather of the petitioner were living at Darrang earlier. iv) The petitioner could not produce the voters’ list of 1970, wherein she claimed that her projected grandfather and grandmother were enlisted. ii) The petitioner could not produce her birth certificate as well as her father. iii) The father and grandfather of the petitioner were living at Darrang earlier. iv) The petitioner could not produce the voters’ list of 1970, wherein she claimed that her projected grandfather and grandmother were enlisted. v) The projected grandfather and grandmother of the petitioner did not vote after 1966, till 2009, which suggests that almost for 43 years the alleged voters had not casted their vote. vi) In 1966, the names of the grandfather and grandmother were Adhir Chandra Sinha and Malati Devi Sinha, whereas in 2009 voters’ list, their names appeared as Adhir Sinha and Malati Sinha. vii) The age of the projected grandfather was stated to be 35 years in 1966 and that in the year 2009, he should have been stated to be 78 years of age, but he was shown as 84 years of age. Similarly, the age of the projected grandmother, who was shown as 29 years of age in 1966 and who should have been shown as 72 years of age in 2009, but she was shown as 77 years old. The age discrepancy is also seen in connection with his projected grandfather in his voter ID Card. viii) The Voter ID cards of the petitioner, her projected father and her projected grandfather were not proved according to law. ix) Except for Exhibit-4, wherein the petitioner’s name appeared along with her father, no other voters’ lists were placed. x) The age of the projected father is shown as 53 years in the year 2009, which makes it clear that the said projected father was born in 1956 and the eligible age for voting being 21 years, the proceedee’s father seems to have voted after 32 years of age. xi) The petitioner’s father never appeared as voter along with proceedee’s grandfather. Proceedee seems to have voted again after a gap of 12 years, i.e., in the year 2019. xii) The petitioner had not given any voters’ list between 1966 to 2009 and as such, the change in the name of his grandfather and grandmother did not stand proved. xiii) The petitioner remained untraced even after issuing notice in her given address and the said case had to be revived in the year 2019. xii) The petitioner had not given any voters’ list between 1966 to 2009 and as such, the change in the name of his grandfather and grandmother did not stand proved. xiii) The petitioner remained untraced even after issuing notice in her given address and the said case had to be revived in the year 2019. On these grounds, the learned Tribunal had rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is put to challenge by the petitioner in the instant petition. Submissions: 10. Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1966, the name of the grandfather and the grandmother appeared as voters in the Dhakuakhana LAC No. 114, under North Lakhimpur Sub-Division, and that in the year 2005, the name of the projected father and grandfather appeared in the voters’ list of the said year. He also submitted that in the year 2009, the petitioner appeared along with her father in the Voters’ List of the said year. He further submitted that revenue was paid by the projected father of the petitioner in the year 2014 and that in the revenue receipt, the father of the petitioner was shown to be the son of Adhir Sinha. He also submitted and relied upon the school certificate dated 31.05.2019, wherein the petitioner’s father Sri Abhiram Sinha was stated to be the son of Adhir Chandra Sinha and whose date of birth i.e., his projected father’s is shown to be on 01.01.1958. He further submitted that the voters’ list of 2009, although showed the names of his grandparents and parents and herself separately, but the names tallies that Adhir Sinha is the grandfather of the petitioner and Abhiram Sinha is the father of the petitioner. 11. On the other hand, Ms A Verma, learned counsel for FT and Border matters submitted that in the year 2005, the age of the projected father of the petitioner was shown as 48 years, but his projected father was not shown with his projected grandfather in any of the voters’ list and further that, the petitioner has exhibited the extract copy of the voters’ list of 2005, which is not admissible piece of evidence. She further submitted that petitioner being married should have been enlisted as a voter with her husband instead of her projected parents and also that the school certificate which is relied on by the petitioner was not exhibited. She further submitted that petitioner being married should have been enlisted as a voter with her husband instead of her projected parents and also that the school certificate which is relied on by the petitioner was not exhibited. She further stated that from the records, it is revealed that the petitioner was married in 2007 and the child was born before marriage, i.e., in 2006. She also stated that the Panchayat certificate placed by the petitioner is also not admissible and further that, there were no voters’ list from the year 1966 to the year 2009 and that in 2019, the petitioner appeared alone as a voter in the voters’ list of the said year. She also stated that continuous stay of the husband of the petitioner is also not established within the soil of Assam. These are the submissions of the learned counsels. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 12. At the very outset, it is noticed that in the voters’ list of 1966, the names of the projected grandfather and grandmother of the petitioner appeared in the same for Dhakuakhana LAC No. 114 at Village-Akhoifutia Sakuli, and, thereafter in the year 1970, the projected grandfather of the petitioner appeared alone as a Voter for the same constituency with the same house number. Thereafter, in the year 2005, the petitioner appeared as a Voter along with her projected father, namely, Abhiram Sinha for the same constituency, but with different house number, i.e., 131. Subsequently, in 2009 voters’ list, the names of the projected grandfather and grandmother appeared in respect of the same constituency, but a different place, i.e., P.S.-Ghilamara Revenue Circle- Subhansiri Part-I Rupohi and the house number is also different. It is seen that the actual name of the petitioner’s grandfather was Adhir Chandra Sinha and the actual name of the grandmother was Malati Devi Sinha, but in the voters’ list of 2009, the names of the projected grandfather and grandmother appeared as Adhir Sinha and Malati Sinha respectively. Although the petitioner in the written statement had stated that Adhir Chandra Sinha and Adhir Sinha is one and the same person and that Malati Devi Sinha and Malati Sinha is also one and the same person, but it is unknown as to why the names of the petitioner’s grandfather and grandmother did not appear as voters in the voters’ list of 2005. It is also unknown as to why in the voters’ list of 2009, the name of the petitioner appeared with the name of her projected father, namely, Abhiram Sinha, and in a separate list to that of the names of her grandfather and grandmother. Moreso, when the constituency is the same along with the place of voting, names reflected in different list raises a doubt with regard to the family members of the petitioner, moreso, in absence of the averment that petitioner’s father had left the place of his father and started staying at a different place. Thereafter, in the voters’ list of 2019, the name of the petitioner appeared singly with the same constituency and with the same house number. Further, the petitioner could not place any voters’ list, wherein her projected father appeared along with her projected grandfather and grandmother. The only link between the projected father with the grandfather is the revenue receipt paid in respect of the land, which is stated to have been owned by the grandfather of the petitioner. It is produced by the petitioner that for the year 1966-1967, 1971-1972, his projected grandfather had paid the revenue, and thereafter, for the year 2001-2002, the revenue was paid by her projected father, namely, Sri Abhiram Sinha, and in the said receipt, Sri Abhiram Sinha is shown to be the son of Adhir Chandra Sinha. Same is for the year 2013-2014, for which the revenue was paid by the projected father of the petitioner. However, it is seen that there is a long gap between 1971-1972 and 2001-2002, and the petitioner could not place any document to show as to who paid the revenue in the intervening years. Further, the land for which revenue was paid by the grandfather seems to be different from the land for which the father of the petitioner had paid the revenue, as could be seen from the column at the left side of the revenue receipt. As such, the link between the father of the petitioner and the grandfather of the petitioner could not be established by the petitioner by any cogent evidence. It is no longer res integra that to establish the citizenship, the proceedee has to show his link directly with his or her ancestor who stayed in the country or who were the citizens of this Country before the cut-off date of 25.03.1971. It is no longer res integra that to establish the citizenship, the proceedee has to show his link directly with his or her ancestor who stayed in the country or who were the citizens of this Country before the cut-off date of 25.03.1971. It is noticed that the projected father of the petitioner casted his vote first in the year 2005 and his age was shown to be 48 years and that the petitioner had not produced any voters’ list prior to 2005, wherein the projected father of the petitioner appeared as a voter, although he should have been, by considering his age. 13. The petitioner had made a fragile attempt to establish her citizenship by producing the certificate issued by the Headmaster of Chakuli M V School, by which it was certified that her projected father being the son of Adhir Chandra Sinha passed the annual examination of Class-V and was promoted to Class-VI and that he left his school in the year 1971. However, the said certificate is not admissible in evidence without the proof of its contents. The author of the said certificate was not examined as required under the law. Thereafter, the petitioner further made an endeavour to prove her linkage with her projected father as well as the projected grandfather by producing a certificate issued by the Education Department, wherein it was stated that she passed annual examination in the Puroni Kathoni Prathamik Vidyalaya, but the said certificate is again not admissible for two reasons, one being the National Emblem inserted in the said certificate and the other being the author not examined. As such, both the certificates cannot be of any help to the petitioner in the instant case. The petitioner had also relied on the Elector Photo Identity Card issued to her, her projected father as well as her projected grandfather, but the same are again of no help to the cause of the petitioner, inasmuch as, it is a settled law that having documents, such as, an Aadhar Card, Pan Card or Voter ID card did not by itself make someone a citizen of India as these documents were meant for identification or availing services, which cannot override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Act. If one requires any authority on the point, the decision of this Court in the case of Md. If one requires any authority on the point, the decision of this Court in the case of Md. Babul Islam -vs- Union of India and Others ; WP(C) No. 3547/2016, decided on 09.05.2016, may be referred to. As such, possession of the Voter ID Card by the petitioner or her father or grandfather cannot establish the fact that they were citizens of India. The petitioner has also relied on a certificate issued by the Secretary of Gaon Panchayat, which is again not proved according to law, i.e., by calling the author of the certificate as a witness to prove the contents of the same. 14. It is as such, seen from the evidence on record that although the link between the petitioner and her projected father was established by looking into the voters’ list of 2009, but the link of the petitioner or her projected father with her projected grandfather is missing. Although in 2009 voters’ list, the name of the petitioner along with her projected father appeared and in the same year, the name of her projected grandfather also appeared, but the voters’ lists were separate for which the link could not be established. Further, had the house number of the petitioner, her father and her projected grandfather been the same, the said would have become a link with the projected grandfather, but it is seen that the house number of the petitioner and her projected father was 131, whereas the house number of the petitioner’s projected grandfather and projected grandmother was 166. Although the place of voting is the same, the difference in the house numbers raises doubt to the fact that petitioner was the granddaughter of Adhir Chandra Sinha and in absence of any pleadings too. As such, the link is not established by way of voters’ list, and the only link between the projected father and the projected grandfather was sought to be established by placing the revenue receipts, but again the land mentioned in the revenue receipt does not seem to be one and the same land for which the projected grandfather gave the revenue and the projected father submitted the revenue. The other documents, i.e., the certificates being not proved in accordance with law, cannot come in aid to the petitioner’s cause. CONCLUSION: 15. The other documents, i.e., the certificates being not proved in accordance with law, cannot come in aid to the petitioner’s cause. CONCLUSION: 15. 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 and projected grandparents. 16. On the available materials, we find that the Tribunal rendered 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 29.06.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal-II, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Lakhimpur FT-II Case No. 739 of 2007, corresponding to Dist. No. 174 of 2007, does not call for any interference and the instant writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 17. The actions consequent upon the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal would follow in accordance with law. 18. The records of the aforesaid FT Case be returned to the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal-II, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, forthwith, along with a copy of this order.