Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010289392019 2026:GAU-AS:10012 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8794/2019 JIRA BEGUM @ JIRATUN BEGUM @ JIRATUN NESSA W/O CHAYED ALI, D/O- MAHAMMAD ALI, VILL. NO. 3 HACHANG, P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06. 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP AT AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031. 4:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) KAMRUP AT AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031. 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI Page No.# 2/11 TO BE REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1. 6:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION ASSAM BHANGAGARH LACHIT NAGAR GHY.-05 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR M HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. M. Hussain, Adv. Advocate for the respondent No.1 : Mr. S. K. Singh, CGC Advocate for the respondent No. 5 : Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel, ECI. Advocate for the State respondents : Mr. P. Sharmah, Addl. Senior Govt. Adv, Assam. Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 and 6 : Mr. G. Sharma, SC, FT & Border Matters Date on which judgment is reserved : 17.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 22.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Pranjal Das, J) Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Singh, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing counsel for Page No.# 3/11 the FT and Border matters; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing counsel for the ECI and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. Invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner herein, namely, Jira Begum @ Jiratun Begum @ Jiratun Nessa, has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the judgment and opinion dated 04-10-2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 5, Kamrup, Amingaon at Rangia, Assam in RFT Case no. 262R/2016. By the said opinion, the Tribunal answered the reference against the petitioner by holding that she is a foreigner of the post 1971 stream, and consequential steps were also directed. 3. The facts in brief that emerges from the case is that a reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup Amingaon, vide Reference Police Case No. 1837/2008, expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner as proceedee, and seeking an opinion regarding the same from the Tribunal. Accordingly, the aforementioned FT Case was registered, and notice was issued to the writ petitioner, as proceedee, who appeared and filed her written statement. 4. Subsequently, during the proceeding, the petitioner as proceedee, adduced testimony of herself as DW1, and that of three other witnesses, including her projected brother, and also her son. She also exhibited several documents in support of her contention that she was an Indian citizen. However, the Tribunal could not be persuaded to opine in her favour and she was held to be a foreigner post 1971 stream, as already stated above. Hence the present writ petition. 5. In the written statement, the petitioner, Jiratun Nessa, claimed to be Page No.# 4/11 a citizen of India by birth, having been born on 01-01-1954 at village No. 3, Hachang, in the district of Kamrup, and that in 1968, she got married with one Sayed Ali of the same village. The petitioner claims one Mohammad Ali, as her father, stating that he was also a citizen of India by birth, and he was son of one Tarap Ali, stated to be her grandfather. She stated in her written statement that her father migrated from Barpeta district and came to Rangia in search of livelihood. And in 1968, he purchased a plot of land from one Kader Ali, by a sale agreement registered in the Rangia Sub-registrar office. She further pleaded that her grandfather Tarap Ali was issued Annual Khiraj Patta in 1932-33 and also in 1933-34 by the then Deputy Commissioner. 6. In the written statement, the petitioner stated that her projected father, Mohammad Ali, was also enlisted in the 1971 NRC, and also in the voters list of 1970 with regard to Kamalpur LAC. She stated that her grandfather, Tarap Ali was listed as a voter in the list of 1965. The petitioner further stated that her name was enlisted in the voters list of 2011, and she cast her vote at No. 56, Kamalpur constituency, and a voter ID was also issued to her in 2013, and that she also has a PAN card of the year 2019, reiterating that she is a citizen of India by birth, the petitioner, as proceedee, pleaded in the written statement to dismiss the preference. 7. In her evidence on affidavit as DW1, the petitioner, Jiratun Nessa @ Jiratun Begum, stated that her correct name Jiratun Nessa, but in some documents it is written as Jira Begum, and in the present case, written as Jiratun Begum. She stated that she was born in village No. 3 Hachang, and her father Mohammad Ali was also a resident of that village and had migrated there from Barpeta. She exhibited the Annual Khiraj Patta of Page No.# 5/11 1932-33 and 33-34 as Exhibit 1 and 2, respectively, pertaining to her projected grandfather Tarap Ali. Regarding the contended purchase of land by her grandfather, pleaded in the written statement, she exhibited as Exhibit 3 - the sale deed dated 02-02-1968 of Sub-Registrar Office, Rangia. She stated about her marriage to one, Sayed Ali of the same village. She exhibited as Exhibit 5, 6, and 7, respectively, certified copies of the voter lists of 1997, 2005, and 2011 of herself, pertaining to No. 56, Kamalpur constituency. She exhibited her voters ID and PAN card as Exhibit 8 and 9. She also exhibited a residency certificate of Gaonburah as Exhibit 10. In cross-examination by the Assistant Government Pleader, she admitted that in Exhibit 1 and 2, the village name was written as Khardhara Pather, but that she does not know anything about that village. She also admitted that in the said exhibits, her projected grandfather's name was written as Taraf Ali instead of purported correct name Tarap Ali. She reiterated in cross-examination about purchase of the land by her grandfather. She could not say the time period in which she got married and also about her date of birth or year thereof. 8. One Haidar Ali, projected to be the brother of the petitioner, adduced evidence on her behalf as DW3, in which he stated that Jiratun Nessa @ Jira Begum, is his younger sister and that his father's name was late Mohammad Ali, who came originally from Barpeta district. He stated about marriage of the petitioner to Sayed Ali. He exhibited as Exhibit 12 his voter ID card. In cross-examination, he stated that the petitioner got married 20 years back. He stated that his grandfather's name was Tarap Ali. 9. Juran Ali stated to be the son of the petitioner, adduced evidence as Page No.# 6/11 DW4. He stated that he and his mother are residents of No. 3, Hachang under Rangia PS. He exhibited as Exhibit 13 his electoral photo ID card pertaining to the village. He stated the name of his father as Sayed Ali and maternal grandfather as Mohammad Ali. He also stated about purchase of a land by his maternal grandfather 50 years ago from one Kader Ali. In cross-examination, he expressed ignorance regarding the forefathers of his mother. 10. One Gaonburah, namely Hari Charan Das, adduced evidence as DW2 testifying that he was the Gaonburah of village No. 3, Hachang under Rangia PS. He exhibited his identity card as Exhibit 11. He stated that he knew the petitioner, Jiratun Nessa as Jira Begum well and she is ordinary resident of his jurisdictional village. He also stated that she was born in that village and her father's name was Mohammad Ali. He stated about issuing a residency/linkage certificate in her favor, which he exhibited as Exhibit 10 and his signature thereon being Exhibit 10 (1). He proved as Exhibit 10 (2) the photograph of the petitioner affixed on that certificate. In cross-examination, he stated that he maintains regular register of deaths of people in his village but he did not bring that register at the time of deposition. Stating further that perhaps in that register, entry with regard to death of her father was made. He clarified that the register with regard to birth of people is maintained by one Asha Karmi. He stated that in the year 1970, the petitioner's father migrated to their village. At another place in the cross-examination, he states that if the petitioner's father had migrated in 1970, then it is not possible that the petitioner was born at his jurisdictional village. Though he had earlier stated that she was born there. He denied however that he had given false evidence. He Page No.# 7/11 admitted that he did not possess concrete data about the family of the petitioner, as he became Gaonbura in 1990. 11. Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the petitioner but even her father and grandfather are citizens of India by birth. It is submitted that her grandfather Tarap Ali was also present in the district of Barpeta, Assam way back in 1932-33 and 33-34, which is clearly revealed from the annual Khiraj Patta issued in his name by the office of the then Deputy Commissioner of the area. It is submitted that despite adducing cogent evidence, the learned Tribunal unfairly and incorrectly overlooked her evidence and declared her to be a foreigner. 12. On the other hand, Mr. G Sarma, the learned Standing counsel for FT and Border matters, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned opinion and that the petitioner, as proceedee could not show any linkage document with her projected father and grandfather, Mohammad Ali and Tarap Ali, respectively. Referring to the case of Momin Ali Vs Union of India and Others reported in 2017 (2) GLT 1076 at para 13, the learned Standing counsel submits that the testimony of the petitioner's brother contradicts her contention regarding her marriage, as he stated that she had got married 20 years prior to his time of deposition. 13. We have perused the pleading of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, the pleadings of the writ petitioner, the evidence and documentary evidence before the learned Tribunal and other relevant materials. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels on both the sides and perused the decisions cited at the Bar. 14. In the written statement (pleading of the petitioner as proceedee before the Tribunal), though she has referred to her projected father and Page No.# 8/11 grandfather; but she is silent regarding her siblings. This is relevant because one Haider Ali has adduced evidence in her favour as DW3 stating himself to be her brother. Therefore, the said aspect would be a case of the proceedee adducing evidence at variance with her pleading and also cast some doubts about her said projected brother. 15. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel, Mr. Sarma, the petitioner claimed to have got married in 01-02-1968. However, DW2, her projected brother, stated in cross-examination that she got married 20 years back. His deposition was taken on 30-09-2019. Going by the said statement, her year of marriage would be around 1999, which is at a variance of almost 30 years from the year indicated by the petitioner herself regarding her marriage. This causes further doubt regarding her linkage with her projected brother DW2. 16. The annual Khiraj Patta documents exhibited pertaining to her projected grandfather Tarap Ali would only indicate at best the presence of the said Tarap Ali in the territory of Assam as it existed then. To build the linkage with the petitioner, so as to discharge the burden under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 - the petitioner, as proceedee, had to show linking evidence with her projected father and/or grandfather. In this regard, it is well settled by now that mere oral evidence would not suffice to discharge the said burden, as per the law laid down in Nur Begum Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2020(3) GLT 347 at Para 6. 17. Exhibit 4 is a crucial document, being the voters list of 1970, figuring the name of Mohammad Ali, son of Tarap Ali, against Serial No. 738. Accepting this document would only mean the presence of Mohammad Ali, the projected father of the petitioner, in Assam, India in Page No.# 9/11 1970 and being a citizen of the Country. As per the exhibited documents, the name of the petitioner figures in the voters list for the first time in 1997 at the age of 45, but her name is indicated as Jira Begum and her projected husband's name is shown as Sayed. Similarly, in Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7, (voter lists of 2005 and 2011), her name is indicated as Jira Begum, wife of Sayed Ali. Therefore, though the proceedee had exhibited the voters list of 1970, figuring her projected father's name, but the subsequent voters list, though figuring her name, does so only with her husband rather than her projected father. 18. The exhibited voter ID card and PAN card are not standalone proofs of citizenship as per the settled law governing the field in the case of Md. Babul Islam -versus- State of Assam & Others passed in WP(C) No. 3547/2016 (2018:Gau-AS:7084-DB) and in the case of Jabeda Begum Vs. Union of India reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 4895 : (2021) 1 Gau LR 5. 19. Now we come to the certificate issued by the Government, Gaonbura, Hari Charan Das, and his testimony as DW2. In the certificate, he has stated the name of the petitioner as Jiratun Nessa, wife of late Sayed Ali, and stated that she is a permanent resident of that village. In his testimony regarding the certificate, he has also stated that she was born in No. 3, Hachang village, though the same is not mentioned in the certificate (Exhibit 10). At the time of deposition, he also did not bring the register which he admitted in cross-examination. In any case, he referred to the register of deaths, clarifying that the register of birth is maintained separately by Asha Karmi. It is also revealed from his testimony that he has been Gaonbura since 1990, and he does not possess data regarding Page No.# 10/11 the family of the petitioner. It may be mentioned herein that the petitioner claims to be born in the year 1954. The certificate of the Gaonbura (Exhibit 10) also bears the Ashoka emblem - thereby constituting an infirmity and adversely affecting its admissibility. Reference may be made to the decision in the case of Khudeja Khatun -versus- Union of India & Others reported in 2018(3) GLT 347 at para 13. It is clear from the evidence of testimony of DW2/ Gaonbura and the certificate issued by him that his statement regarding the petitioner being born in the said village is not based on any contemporaneous records and the circumstances revealed by his evidence do not indicate that he had any objective basis to know about the same. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that the Gaonbura certificate - despite the author of the certificate deposing it for the petitioner - do not create link evidence with her projected father, Mohammad Ali. 20. Thus, upon perusing the evidence adduced by the petitioner as proceedee before the learned Tribunal - we are unable to find any link evidence, including essentially link documentary evidence - with the said late Mohammad Ali, projected to be her father and/or or late Tarap Ali, projected to be her grandfather. 21. As already discussed, the testimony of her brother suffers from infirmity and is not convincing. Further, the testimony of her son also does not constitute sufficient link evidence as he has merely stated that his maternal grandfather's name was late Mohammad Ali. 22. It is well settled that in such proceedings only oral evidence would not suffice. Lastly, due to the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the oral and documentary evidence of the Gaonbura suffers from infirmities Page No.# 11/11 and does not create the necessary link evidence. 23. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, we are unable to disagree with the impugned opinion, and the said judgment and opinion dated 04-10- 2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 5, Kamrup, Amingaon at Rangia, Assam in RFT Case no. 262R/2016 is hereby upheld and confirmed. The interim order by the order dated 11-05-2020, stands vacated. Consequential steps will follow as per law. 24. The writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of. 25. Return back the original case records to the learned Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant