SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Shahjahan Ali, S/o. Khandakar Aklash Uddin @ Akhlaz Uddin & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 6176 of 2019, WP(C) No. 6145 of 2019
Decided On : 16-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.R. Sikdar, Mr. A. Ali.
For the Respondents: Asstt. S.G.I., Mr. N. Pathak, SC, FT, Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI, Ms. U. Das, GA, Assam, Ms. L. Devi, SC, NRC.

Point of Law: Mere absence of documentary evidence would not dilute the evidentiary value of the oral testimony.

Headnote:

Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 – Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 and 59 - State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 - Section 11 - Foreigners - Citizenship status - Proof of residence - Voter list - Common order passed in F.T. declaring both of them as foreigners – Challenged - Learned Tribunal by referring to written statements and evidences on record noted that both petitioners in their written statements had claimed that they were born and brought up at village. Learned Tribunal also noted that both proceedees had stated that in year 1997 both their parents, in their nick names were shown as voters of Tedhara under 45 No. Baghbar LAC instead of their correct names. Court unable to agree with the said approach taken by the learned Tribunal for the reason that even if the name of the petitioners' father was entered in year 1986, name entered in the said document was Eklas Uddin, son of A. Sattar and it can be used to corroborate that it is the same person whose name appears in voters lists of 1966 and 1970 in the same village. (Para 52)

Finding of the court:

Court opinion that evidence of DW2 who had testified before Tribunal that she is the mother of petitioners, could not have been ignored, more so, when no dispute was raised about relationship. Merely because a person comes to witness stand and claims that she is mother of a proceedee may not amount to proof relationship. Yet, when no question was asked and her testimony not challenged, such an assertion can be accepted as true specially when there are documentary evidences, in form of voters lists. In present case, no such question was asked to DW2 to doubt her claim that she is the mother of the proceedees - Thus, it can be used as an evidence to show continued presence of their father in said village, Said jamabandi copy in isolation may not throw any light on linkage of petitioners with projected father, but in conjunction with other evidences on record, it may help to establish their plea that they are sons of projected father - Accordingly, for reasons discussed above, we are unable to agree with approach and reasoning adopted by learned Tribunal in rejecting plea of the petitioners - Accordingly, we are of opinion that learned Tribunal will be required to reassess evidences on record in light of observations made above by us and also in accordance with law and pass a fresh opinion as regards citizenship status of petitioners after hearing petitioners - In view of our above conclusion, we deem it not necessary to deal with rival contentions of the parties and they may raise these issues before the learned Tribunal at time of hearing.

Result: Petitions disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1 as well as appearing as standing counsel, NRC, for respondent No.6; Mr. N. Pathak, learned special counsel, FT, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 5; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No.4.

2. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the common order dated 15.02.2019 passed in F.T. Case Nos.103/2017 [Ref. IM(D)T Case No.11076/98] and 104/2017 [Ref. IM(D)T Case No.11074/98] declaring both of them as foreigners.

3. The proceedees in both the petitions, namely, Sahjahan Ali and Khandakar Abdur Rouf, are stated to be two brothers born to Khandakar, resident of Tedhara, under Baghbar police station in Barpeta district. After the reference was made, notices were issued to the petitioners in both the petitions and they duly received the notice and filed their respective written statements. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the petitioners in both the petitions are brothers, they relied on the same set of documents and in fact, the learned Tribunal proceeded to consider the said documents, which are 8(eight) in number and exhibited as Exbts.-A to H as follows:-

    Exhibit-A: Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1966

Exhibit-B: Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1970

Exhibit-C: Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1997

Exhibit-D: Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 2005

Exhibit-E: Electoral Photo Identity Card

Exhibit-F: Jamabandi copy

Exhibit-G: Gaonburah Certificate of Tedhara Gaon

Exhibit-H: A self sworn affidavit

4. We will first examine the observations and findings of the learned Tribunal.

5. Learned Tribunal by referring to the written statements and the evidences on record noted that the both the petitioners in their written statements had claimed that they were born and brought up at village Tedhara Pathar, PS-Baghbar, District-the then Kamrup, now Barpeta, Assam. Learned Tribunal also noted that both the proceedees had stated that in the year 1997 both their parents, in their nick names i.e. Khandakar Aklas Uddin and Sahera Khatun were shown as voters of Tedhara under 45 No. Baghbar LAC instead of their correct names Akhlaz Uddin and Saheran Nessa. In the written statements, it was also mentioned that Saheran Nessa and Sahera Khatun are one and the same person. It has been also stated that in the Electoral Photo Identity Card, their mother's name Sahera Khatun has been recorded instead of correct name, Saheran Nessa.

6. Learned Tribunal further observed that both the petitioners had not disclosed their grand-parents' names and also had not mentioned how many brothers and sisters their grand-parents had and how many brothers and sisters their father had. The Tribunal also noted that there is also no mention about the brothers and sisters of both the petitioners. Learned Tribunal also noted that at the time of filing written statements, both the petitioners had not mentioned the date and year of their birth.

7. Learned Tribunal also noted that both the petitioners had examined two witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 in support of their claim. DW-2 is Saheran Nessa alias Sahera Khatun, wife of Akhlaz Uddin alias Khandakar Akhlaz Uddin, who the petitioners claim to be their mother. DW3 is a Gaonburah.

8. Learned Tribunal also noted that DW-2 stated that the person whose name as Akhlaz Uddin in the voters' lists of 1966 and 1970, is her husband and the name of DW-2 has been recorded as Saheran Nessa, wife of Akhlaz Uddin in the aforesaid voters' lists.

DW-2 further stated that in the year 1997 her name along with her husband Akhlaz Uddin and Sahera Khatun respectively had been recorded instead of their correct names i.e. Akhlaz U

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top