The burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish their citizenship status, and reliable and cogent documentary evidence is required to prove citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Ms. L. Wajeeda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam for respondent Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 7 and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2. The petitioner, by instituting the present proceedings, has assailed the order/opinion dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 7 at Lanka, Nagaon in F.T./L Case No. 74/2015 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 without valid authorization.

3. The basic facts requisite for adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the present proceedings are narrated herein below:

On a reference being made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner, F.T./H Case No. 4591/2010 came to be registered. However, on creation of the Foreigners Tribunal No. 7, Nagaon at Lanka (Hojai), the said case was transferred and renumbered as F.T./L Case No. 74/2015.

4. The petitioner herein, on receipt of notice of the proceeding, entered appearance as a proceedee before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement. In the written statement, the petitioner had referred to certain voter lists of 1966 and 1971 stating that his father’s name figured therein. It was the further contention of the petitioner that in year 1990, he had shifted to Village Sadargaon under 90 No. Jamunamukh LAC and continued to reside therein. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has exhibited as many as 18 (eighteen) documents through himself and through the witnesses deposing on his behalf.

5. After closure of the evidence and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the proceedee, the learned Tribunal rendered its order/opinion dated 22.02.2017.

6. Being aggrieved with the impugned order/ opinion dated 22.02.2022 passed by learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 7 at Lanka, Nagaon in F.T./L Case No. 74/2015, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 09.03.2017.

7. The primary issue for determination in the present proceeding is as to whether the petitioner could establish his linkage with his projected father in order to establish his status of citizenship under the provisions of Section 6(A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there being documents establishing the presence of the father of the petitioner on Indian soil prior to the cut off date, i.e. 25.03.1971, the petitioner cannot be denoted as a foreigner and he is an Indian national for all intent and purpose. It was further contended that the documents exhibited by and on behalf of the petitioner establishes the citizenship status of the petitioner and the same is undisputable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Exhibits-11 & 12, which are the copies of Kessa Patta dated 09.04.2013 and of the Jamabandi, has contended that the name of the father of the petitioner has been duly recorded therein as a Pattadar. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order/opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal, under challenge in the present proceeding, is required to be interfered with and the petitioner be declared to be an Indian national.

9. Per contra, Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel, Home Department, by referring to the pleadings in the writ petition, has submitted that the petitioner has only made general and vague statements towards challenging the order/opinion of the learned Tribunal. It was the contention of Mr. Payeng that no specific averments have been made toward assailing the conclusion reached in the order/opinion by the learned Tribunal. Mr. Payeng, by referring to the written statement filed on behalf o