Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010165082020 2026:GAU-AS:12541-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4945/2020 HAJERA KHATUN D/O- LT. JIBAN MIYA, W/O- MOBBES ALI, VILL- HELOCHAR PAM, P.O. NALIGAON, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, 110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI 110001 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GHY-5 5:THE STANDING COUNCIL SPECIAL FT AND BOARDER 6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM Page No.# 2/9 781301 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA ASSAM 781301 8:THE O/C SORBHOG P.S. BARPET Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MR. Z RAHMAN,MR A HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 27.08.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. N. Kalita on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Hajera Khatun, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 28.08.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 8th, Barpeta, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 79/18, corresponding to IM(D)T Case No. 6367(A), by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. Page No.# 3/9 3. The petitioner, on receipt of the notice of the proceedings appeared and filed her written statement. In the written statement, the petitioner took a plea that the name of her grandparents is Jaher Miya and Sibaran Nessa and the name of her parents is Jiban Miya and Pariskar Nessa. She projected herself to married Mobbes Ali. She had stated that the name of her father appeared in the NRC of 1951 of Vill-Helochar Pam. The name of her parents and brother appeared in the voter’s list of 1965 and 1970 and her own name along with her husbands name appeared in the voter’s list of 1993, 1997, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2017 and 2018 of the same village. She also relies on the Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) and PAN card issued by the Income Tax authorities. The petitioner claimed that in the jamabandi on the death of her father, her name along with the name of her siblings was mutated in respect of the land. In support of her defence, the petitioner had filed her evidence-on-affidavit, wherein she had reiterated the stand taken in the written statement and exhibited the following documents as follows:- (Ext.A) NRC details. (Ext.B) computerized certified voter list of 1970. (Ext.C) certified copy of voter list of 1993. (Ext.D) certified copy of voter list of 1997. (Ext.E) certified copy of voter list of 2008. (Ext.F) certified copy of voter list of 2010. (Ext.G) certified copy of voter list of 2011. (Ext.H) Elector photo identity card. (Ext.I) PAN card. (Ext.J) and (Ext.K) land revenue receipts. (Ext.L) Gaonburah certificate. (Ext.M) (Ext.N) Chitha copy of land. Page No.# 4/9 (Ext.O) Jamabandi scopy. 4. The petitioner had also examined one Delowar Hussain, the gaonburah as DW-2, who had stated that in his certificate the name of the father of the petitioner appeared in the voter list of 1965 which was found enclosed with this certificate. However, no such document is found enclosed with his certificate. The petitioner had also examined Agor Ali, the Lat Mandal of Sarthebari Revenue Circle as DW-3, who had referred to the mutation of the name of the petitioner and other brother and sister in respect of the land of her father. 5. The learned Tribunal had rejected the evidence of the DWs. In respect of the jamabandi, in view of the response given by DW-3 that in the record it is not mentioned from when the land was in possession of Jiban Ali and there was no record of enquiry made at the time of the mutation of the name of the petitioner on inheritance and moreover, the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was referred to as Jiban Ali and there was no explanation regarding the name discrepancy of the father of the petitioner, which is written as Jiban Ali whereas in the deposition the name of the father of the petitioner is referred to as Jiban Miya, it was held that so far as the grandfather’s name is concerned there was no evidence to prove that Jahir Bepari and Jaher Miya is same and one person and therefore, Jiban Miya son of Zaher Miya and Jiban Ali son of Jahir Bepari cannot be relied upon as same and one person. Accordingly, the copy of chitta (Ext.M), copy of jamabandi (Ext.O), land revenue receipts (Ext. J and Ext.K) and gaonburah certificate (Ext.L) were held not to prove the case of the petitioner. The NRC details (Ext.A) was discarded as it was a print- out of the NRC details, on account of the fact that there was no authentication or certification by the competent authority. Accordingly, the exhibited voter’s list Page No.# 5/9 were not found to prove that the petitioner or her father or her projected grandfather were citizens of India, moreso because the petitioner, in her written statement as well as in the evidence, had referred to the grandfather as Jaher Miya. Resultantly, the other exhibited documents were also not found helpful for the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, amongst others, had submitted that in paragraph no. 35 of the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner she had stated that she had submitted the photocopy of the voter list of 1965 with her written statement, statement alongwith evidence-on-affidavit, she had again submitted a photocopy of the said voter’s list owing to non-issuance of certified copy by the concerned authorities. It was submitted that she had stated she had applied for copy of the voter’s list of 1965 through her advocate vide Application No. SSDC/ED/CCER/1331344 dated 08.05.2018. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitoiner has produced before this Court a photocopy of the acknowledgement receipt of the application for certified copy of the voter list of 1965 submitted on 08.05.2018. It is submitted that the certified copy of the said document was obtained on 21.11.2019, after the opinion was passed by submitting another application dated 21.11.2019. By referring to the said document, it is submitted that the said document would be helpful for the petitioner to prove the discrepancy in the name of the father and the grandfather. It is further submitted that the petitioner has 2 (two) more documents to be exhibited in the event the Court permits the remand of the matter. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court dated 15.06.2026, passed by this Court in the case of Saidul Rahman @ Md. Saidul Islam, WP(C)/5250/2019. Page No.# 6/9 7. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal had correctly read the jamabandi and as the said document is of post 25.03.1971, the same was not found sufficient to prove the citizenship of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal had assigned reasons for discarding the jamabandi on account of the fact that it does not allocate share to the various pattadars and that the name of the projected father of the petitioner in the jamabandi is not Jiban Miya as stated by the petitioner in her written statement but the name of the pattadar is Jiban Ali. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said document was not a proof of Indian citizenship of the petitioner. Similarly, he has referred to the finding of the learned Tribunal on other exhibits and has supported the discarding of the documentary evidence of the petitioner by the learned Tribunal. He also stressed on the lack of record, stated by DW-3 in his deposition with respect to the land over which the petitioner has got the right of inheritance. Moreover, it is submitted that as per the evidence available on record, the mother of the petitioner was still alive but she did not inherit any share in the land. 8. Having considered the submissions as well as the records of the learned Tribunal, it is noticed that in the evidence-on-affidavit which was filed by the petitioner on 14.06.2018, the petitioner had mentioned in paragraph no. 35 thereof that the photocopy of the voter’s list of 1965 was filed with the written statement, which was re-submitted along with the evidence-on-affidavit and the application number and date referred to in paragraph no. 35 appears in the photocopy of the said application receipt produced before this Court. On the said document it appears that the summon on behalf of the petitioner had applied for the certified copy of the voter list of 1965 under application no. Page No.# 7/9 SSDC/ED/CCER/1331344 dated 08.05.2018. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to provide a photocopy thereof for making it a part of record. Therefore, without examining the evidentiary value of the photocopy of the voter list of 1965, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the certified copy of the voter list of 1965 has been received and annexed to this writ petition, in the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner has been able to make out a case to enable her to get one opportunity to prove the voter list of 1965. As stted in this writ petition, the petitioner had filed photocopy of the voter list of 1965 with her written statement and evidence-on-affidavit. 10. In so far as the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding additional documents required to be proved is concerned, the Court does not find that the case of Saidul Rahman @ Md. Saidul Islam (supra) would come to the aid of the petitioner in any manner. In the said case, the projection was that the father of the petitioner in the said case was declared to be not a foreigner and this Court took note of the fact that the petitioner, while contesting the proceedings, had produced uncertified copies of the voter’s list. Accordingly, this Court, while not approving the submission of the uncertified copies of the voter list before the learned Tribunal, granted the petitioner therein one opportunity to produce the certified copies of the document and all the voter’s list referred therein to facilitate a fresh opinion. Therefore, the decision is not an authority on the point that merely because the petitioner has left out to exhibit any document before the learned Tribunal, she would be given an opportunity by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the prayer to enable the petitioner to exhibit any further document is rejected, same and except the voter list of Page No.# 8/9 1965. 11. Accordingly, the Court finds that the case of remand has been made out, the Court does not put to examine any other issue on merit, as it could prejudice the petitioner while leading fresh evidence in respect of the voter list of 1965. 12. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the said learned Tribunal so as to give an opportunity to prove the certified copy of the voter list of 1965. 13. In order to facilitate the same, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned opinion dated 28.08.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 8th, Barpeta, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 79/18. 14. The petitioner, who is duly represented by her learned counsel, is directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal on or before the outer time limit of 30.09.2026. On the date of her appearance, the petitioner shall file her additional written statement only in respect of the voter list of 1965 and she would also present before the said learned Tribunal and her additional evidence- on-affidavit along with the voter list of 1965. 15. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, keeping in mind the time limit as prescribed under Section 17 (14) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 which supersedes the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 16. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner does not appear on or before the time allowed, the opportunity granted to the petitioner would be lost and it would be open to the learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law. Page No.# 9/9 17. It is further provided that on the date of appearance of the petitioner, she shall be ready and willing to take bail of such sum as may be deemed fit and proper by the learned Tribunal. It is provided that the bail so granted by the learned Tribunal shall be valid for a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the opinion that may be passed by the said learned Tribunal. 18. The Registry shall return back the Tribunals records expeditiously along with a copy of this order to be made a part of record by the said learned Tribunal. 19. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicate above with an order of remand. 20. There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant