Discrepancies in names do not invalidate evidence of family identity; established family connections must be considered in determining foreigner status.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for FT matters, representing respondent nos. 2 and 4; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3; Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.5; and Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for respondent no.6.

2. The opinion dated 23.07.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1st, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 14/2017 [arising out of IM(D)T Ref. Case No. 5233/98], thereby answering the reference by holding the petitioner to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, has been assailed by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. On reference being made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, alleging that the petitioner, Amzad Ali, son of Sobhan of Village- Purbalowashur, P.S. Barpeta in the district of Barpeta is a foreigner, proceedings was registered as F.T. Case No. 14/2017. On receipt of notice, the petitioner had entered appearance and contested the proceeding by filing his written statement denying the allegations and in support of his stand, he had annexed 8 (eight) documents, viz., photocopy of voter list of 1965 of projected grandfather; photocopy of certified copy of voter list of 1970 of projected father and mother; photocopy of certified copy of voter list of 1989, 1997 and 2010 of projected mother; photocopy of voter list of 1997 with ‘D’ mark; photocopy of land document; Gaonbura’s certificate. Later on, the petitioner had also filed an additional written statement and in addition to previously filed document, had annexed an affidavit for name correction.

4. The petitioner had filed his evidence-on-affidavit as DW-1 and had exhibited following 8 (eight) documents, viz., (i) photocopy of certified copy of the voter list of 1965 containing name of Koshim Uddin Ali and Majiran Nessa, projected grandfather and grandmother (Ext.A); (ii) photocopy of certified copy of voter list of 1970 of projected uncle, father, mother and aunt, Azman Ali Talukdar, Suban Ali Talukdar, Suratan Nessa and Amiran Nessa (Ext.B); (iii) to (v) photocopy of certified copy of voter list of 1989, 1997 and 2010 of Amiran Nessa, projected mother (Ext.C, D and E); (vi) photocopy of jamabandi of land (Ext.F); (vii) Gaonbura’s certificate of village Purbalowashur (Ext.G); (viii) affidavit sworn on 31.10.2017, on discrepancy regarding his name, his father’s name and his grandfather’s name. Moreover, a photocopy of voter list of 1997 with ‘D’ mark was also filed as Annexure-1.

5. The petitioner had also examined one Azman Talukdar, the projected uncle of the petitioner as DW-2 and he had exhibited photocopy of his Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext.J). He had also annexed a copy of NRC of 1951 as Annexure-2. The petitioner had also examined one Maynul Haque, the Gaonbura’s of village Purbalowashur as DW-3. He had exhibited his certificate (Ext.G) and his signature [Ext.G(1)] and he had also exhibited a photocopy of his identity card (Ext.K).

6. It may be stated that in the impugned opinion, the learned Member has recorded in para-8 thereof that the documents exhibited as Ext.A to Ext.J were compared with the original.

7. The learned Tribunal, upon examining the exhibited documents, discarded the exhibits on the ground that mere projecting a person named in the voter list as grandfather, grandmother, father and mother is not enough and the proceedee has to prove the same by reliable evidence and therefore, it was held that the documents submitted by the petitioner cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner is a foreigner of post 1971 stream.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents exhibited by the petitioner remained un-impeached and therefore, th