IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish citizenship, which was not met due to insufficient evidence linking her to her claimed lineage.

ORDER : 

K.R. Surana, J

Heard Mr. A.S. Tapadar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters, Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. A.I Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 20.05.2017, passed by the rd learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 3 , Morigaon, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner.

3) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on receipt of the proceedings, the petition had appeared before the Foreigners Tribunal and had submitted a written statement of defence, inter alia, stating that the investigation and enquiry by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon is based on false information and allegation. It was stated that the petitioner was born and brought up in village Muamari under Mouza- Dhing in the district of Nagaon. She is the daughter of Late Kasom Ali and her grandfather is Pasan Ali, whose name is enlisted in NRC 1951. She was married to Asmot Ali at village- Dakhin Kalikajari, where she resides with her husband and she castes her vote regularly before this case and accordingly, she has prayed for dismissal of the case.

4) On 16.11.2016, her oral evidence was recorded as DW-1. She is the opposite party in the case and she was born in Muamari under Dhing Police Station in the district of Nagaon and her grandfather is Pasan Ali, who casted his vote in 1965/1970. She has stated that her grandfather and her other family members used to stay in Dhupguri in Dhing and thereafter, her father shifted to Muamari and her paternal uncles were (1) Asmot Ali, (2) Toyob Ali, (3) Abdul Mataleb. She has exhibited the voter list of 1965 of Pasan Ali (Ext.A); voter list of 1970 of Pasan Ali (Ext.B); voter list of 1997 of Abul Kasem along with her projected mother Mazeda Khatun (Ext.C); Gaonbura certificate for discrepancy for name of father of the petitioner as Kasom Ali and Abul Kasem (Ext.D); Gaonbura certificate for proof of marriage (Ext.E); Niz Dhing Gaonbura certificate regarding petitioners marriage with Asmot Ali (Ext.F); voter list of Asmot (Ext.G); voter list of Toyob (Ext.H); voter list of Abdul Motaleb (Ext.I). In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has four brothers, (1) Mirza Hussain, (2) Abu Sofia, (3) Obaidullah, and (4) Abdullah. Her sisters are (1) Taslima, (2) Joynab (Self), (3) Khaleda Zia, and (4) Hamida.

5) Mazeda Khatun the projected mother of the petitioner was examined as DW-2 on 16.12.2016. She had stated that she had come to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioner her daughter. She has stated that her husband was originally from Muamari in Nagaon and after her husband’s death, she came to another town in original home in Goroimari. Her daughter was born at Muamari and got her married at Kalikajari to Asmot Ali. She has stated that she and her husband had casted vote together and the name of her father-in- law was Pasan Ali and mother-in-law was Moonzan. She has stated that her father-in -law has casted her vote in 1965/1970. She has exhibited the Voter ID of the petitioner (Ext.5- proved in original); and jamabandi copy in the name of family of Abul Kasem (Ext.12-proved in original). In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has four sons and four daughters and disclosed their respective names. She stated that her two sons are working in Kerala and other two sons were studying at Goroimari. Her husband expired 13/14 years back and that her husband’s brothers (1) Toyob Ali, (2) Asmot Ali, (3) Nayob Ali and Rahmat Ali, (4) Kapiluddin, and (5) Motaleb and they are still in Muamari.

6) The learned Tribunal, referring to contents of voters list of 1965 (Ext.A) took a view that Rahim Uddin, who is shown to be the son of Pasan Ali is the paternal uncle of the petitioner. However, the said document was doubted because neither the petitioner nor her