IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gias Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2, 6 and 7; Mr. P Sharma, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 3, as well as Mr. T. Pegu, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent No. 4.

2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Abdul Mazid, son of Abdul Latif, impugning the opinion/order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No. 10th, Shankardev Nagar, Hojai in FT(D) Case No. 1674/2017, whereby the petitioner was declared as a foreigner who has illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.

3. On perusal of the record of FT(D) Case No. 1674/2017, which was requisitioned in connection with the instant writ petition from the concerned Tribunal, it appears that suspecting Md. Abdul Mazid (the petitioner) to be an illegal migrant, an inquiry was initiated against him. During the inquiry, it was found that the petitioner, Abdul Mazid, was suspected to be an illegal migrant, who entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.

4. On the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon referred the matter, i.e., the IM(D)T Case No. 671/2004, to the learned Illegal Migrants Determination Tribunal, Hojai under Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as IM(D)T Act], during its force, for its opinion as to whether the said Md. Abdul Mazid is a citizen of India or not.

5. Later on, after striking down of the IM(D)T Act, 1983 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India & Anr” reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 and as per the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court passed therein, the aforesaid case was transferred to the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Shankardev Nagar which was registered as FT/H/2005/2012 considering it as a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

6. However, it appears from the records that in the said proceeding, the petitioner Abdul Majid failed to appear before the Tribunal in spite of due service of notice on him. As a result, the reference was heard and decided ex-parte against him, and by order dated 19.03.2015, passed in FT/H/2005/2012, the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Shankardev Nagar opined that the petitioner Abdul Majid, son of Abdul Latif, is a foreigner who illegally entered into India on or after 25.03.1971.

7. On perusal of the records, it appears that on 03.10.2017, an application was filed by the petitioner for vacating the ex-parte order dated 19.03.2015 passed in case number FT/H/2005/2012 by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Shankardev Nagar. However, as it was found that the case against the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the Jamunamukh Police Station and the same should be decided by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No. 10th at Shankardev Nagar, Hojai, hence, the case was transferred to the said Tribunal.

8. On receipt of the said case, it was re-numbered as FT(D) Case No. 1674/2017, and by order dated 01.11.2017 passed in the said case, the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No. 10th at Shankardev Nagar, Hojai set aside the ex-parte order dated 19.03.2015, passed by the learned Foreigner's Tribunal, Hojai, in FT/H/2005/2012, and fixed the case on 13.11.2017 for filing the written statement by the petitioner.

9. Thereafter, on 13.11.2017, the petitioner appeared before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No. 10th at Shankardev Nagar, Hojai in FT(D) Case No. 1674/2017, and filed his written statement along with the copies of documents on which he relied upon.

10. In his written statement, the petitioner had stated that his father’s name, i.e. Abdul Latif was enlisted in