IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, NELSON SAILO, JJ.
Kahinur Begum W/O Osman Goni – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 6 Ors – Respondent
Review.Pet./8/2022
Decided on : 20-08-2024
Review - Foreigners Tribunal - Foreigners Act, 1946; Citizenship Act, 1955; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - The Court discussed the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, particularly Section 2(a) regarding the definition of a foreigner, and Section 9 concerning the burden of proof on the individual claiming Indian citizenship. The Court emphasized the limited grounds for review under Order 47 of the CPC, highlighting the necessity for new evidence or apparent errors in the original judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a review of a previous order declaring her a foreigner, arguing that vital facts were overlooked and new evidence had emerged. The petitioner claimed to have been born in India and provided historical electoral records to support her citizenship.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate her claims of citizenship and did not meet the burden of proof required under the Foreigners Act. The delay in filing the review petition was deemed unjustified, and the Court upheld the original decision.
Issues: Whether the review petition was maintainable given the delay and whether the petitioner provided sufficient grounds to challenge the previous order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or present new evidence. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship, which she failed to do.
Result: The review petition is dismissed on both limitation and merit.
JUDGMENT :
(NELSON SAILO, J)
This is an application filed by the review petitioner (petitioner) under Chapter-X of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Order 47, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking review of the Order dated 24.01.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 7412/2016.
[2.] The petitioner aggrieved with the Order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.8th, Barpeta in FT Case No. 159/2015 (Union of India Vs. Kahinur Nessa @ Kahinur Begum) declaring her to be a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, filed WP(C) No. 7412/2016 before this Court. This Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, dismissed the writ petition vide Order dated 24.01.2018. The petitioner thereafter on 25.01.2022, after a period of four (4) years, filed the instant review petition.
[3.] According to the petitioner, review of the Order dated 24.01.2018 is being sought because the writ petition was decided without considering some vital facts which ought to have been considered by this Court and moreover, some new and important discoveries have happened, which needs adjudication.
[4.] The petitioner also contends that she was suffering from various ailments because of her old age in addition to Covid-19 and her poor financial condition and therefore, there is delay in filing the review petition. As such, she prays the delay be condoned.
[5.] The petitioner contends that she was born and brought up at village Kokila Moulovi Para of erstwhile Goalpara district. Her father’s name is Abdul Kudduch and her mother’s name is Nur Khatun. The name of the grandfather is Akalat Miya. The name of the father and mother of the petitioner was included in the voter list of 1966, 1970, 1985, 1997 and 2010 for the erstwhile Abhayapuri, North LAC because of bifurcation.
[6.] In the Electoral Roll of 1966, the name of the father of the petitioner was included as Kuduj and her grandfather’s name as Akash Miya against House No.11, in the said list. In 1970 his name was included as Kudduj Khatun against House No.11 and grandfather’s name as Akkash Miah. In the year 1985, her father’s name was included as Kuddush Miah and grandfather’s name as Akalu against house No.60. In 1997, her father’s name was included as Kuddush Miah, but her grandfather’s name was included as Akalu Miah against house No.78 in the said voter list. Then a prayer for correction of his name including his father was made only in 2010 and their names were then included properly. As for the name of the mother of the petitioner, there was no mistake.
[7.] The name of the petitioner’s father has been recorded in the Jamabandi of village-Chakla part-1, Mouza - Srijangram, as per the order of the Circle Officer dated 21.04.2021 alongwith the petitioner and her brothers and sisters establishing linkage with her father whose name appeared in the voter list of the year 1966.
[8.] That after attaining majority, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with one Osman Goni of village Gugubari of Sorbhog, Barpeta in the year 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner by virtue of her marriage migrated to the aforesaid place which falls under 44 Jonai LAC. After such migration, the name of the petitioner was included in the Electoral Roll in the year 2005 and 2010 prepared for the 44-Jonia LAC.
[9.] While the petitioner was leading a happy married life, suddenly a reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta on 02.01.2003 against her under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act,1983 (IMDT Act). The Act was however declared to be unconstitutional by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665. The pending reference was thereafter transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No.8th to be decided as per the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964. The case of the petitioner was registered as FT Case No.159/2015 and subsequentl
Abdul Khalique (Md.) –Vs- Union of India and Ors. 2013 (1) GauLT 941
Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences vs. Bikartan Das & Ors.
Harpal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) 1 SCC 560
Jaswant Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh & Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 425
Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors.
Maharuddin Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2021 (2) GauLT 1021
MM Thomas Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 666
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 584
S Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors.
Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India
Sirajul Haque Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 534
State of Assam & Ors. Vs. Moslem Mondal & Ors. 2013 (1) GauLT 809
Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420
UP State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. Udaynarain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479
A review petition must show an error apparent on the record or new evidence; the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the petitioner under the Foreigners Act.
Review petitions must demonstrate clear errors or new evidence; mere dissatisfaction with prior rulings is insufficient for review.
The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act lies on the petitioner, and a review petition cannot be used to reargue the case based on previously dismissed evidence.
Review petitions must demonstrate a material error on record; the mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not warrant a re-hearing of one's case.
Review jurisdiction is restricted to correcting patent errors or addressing newly discovered evidence unavailable through due diligence. It cannot be used to re-argue settled issues, and registry inc....
The High Court by invoking its inherent powers, can always pass adequate orders to correct such errors that appear to be apparent on the face of the record.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish their citizenship, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Review petitions in citizenship cases require new evidence or errors apparent on record, not mere re-hearing of previous arguments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition is not maintainable unless there is an error apparent on the face of the records.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.