THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI, JJ
ROMJAN ALI @ ROMJAN - Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. - Respondent
WP(C) 2757 / 2018
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - The petitioner was declared a foreigner who entered India after 25.03.1971 based on insufficient evidence to establish citizenship, including discrepancies in voter lists and lack of credible documentation. (Paras 2 , 5 , 12 , 16 )
(B) Evidence - The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence presented by the petitioner, including voter lists and testimonies, due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. (Paras 5 , 12 , 15 )
(C) Judicial Review - The court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings and upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for credible evidence in citizenship claims. (Paras 16 , 18 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed citizenship based on family voter lists and land records, but the Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence presented, leading to a declaration of foreigner status.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the petitioner's citizenship.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the evidence presented and the proper procedure followed in the Tribunal's decision-making process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish citizenship, and the Tribunal's findings were not perverse or illegal.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. M.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate; and Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for ECI.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 29.05.2017, passed by the th learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.5 , Morigaon in Case No. FT(D) 522/2016 (new) [corresponding to FT(D) 206/2011 (old)], arising out of D/N Case No. 1070/98 dated 18.06.1998. By the impugned opinion, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, who has entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on receipt of summons from the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had filed his written statement, inter alia, stating that the investigation and enquiry was made on the basis of false information. It was also stated that the petitioner was born and brought up at village- Moirabari in the present district of Morigaon. His father, Isab Ali, son of Ruson Ali, was enrolled as a voter in the voter lists of 1965 and 1970 under 84 No. Laharighat LAC. His own name was entered in the voters list of 1977. It was also stated that the name of his parents, namely, Isab Ali and Nurjahan and names of his brothers, namely, Habiz Uddin, Mofiz Uddin, Abdur Rohim and his own name were listed in the voter list of 1989 and 1993. It was also stated that his father’s name was also recorded in the record of rights i.e. jamabandi of the year 1952 and he has acquired the land as inheritance from his father. The petitioner claims that he had shifted to village- Durabandi Beel in the year 1995- 96, which is under Mouza- Moirabari, where he is presently a permanent resident. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed that the proceeding against him be dismissed.
4. In course of the proceeding, the petitioner had examined himself as DW-1 and he has also examined one Ruhul Amin, Govt. Gaonburah as DW-2, who had exhibited a certificate under Sl. No. 1053/15 dated 15.08.16 as Ext.A, which was issued by him and his signature as Ext.A-1 and he was examined by the Court. The petitioner has also examined one Hazarat Ali, cultivator by profession and projected uncle of the petitioner as DW-3. The said witness has also exhibited the following documents, viz., (1) Certified copy of voters list of 1965 containing the name of Isab Ali, whom O.P. has projected as his father as Ext.B; (2) Certified copy of voters list of 1970 containing the name of Isab Ali, whom O.P. has projected as his father as Ext.C; (3) Certified copy of voters list of 1977 containing the name of O.P. Ramjan Ali as Ext.D; (4) Certified copy of voters list of 1985 containing the names of Isab Ali, Nurjan and the name of O.P. Ramjan Ali along with O.P’s purported brother Habez Ali and Anuwara, wife of Ramjan whom O.P. has projected as his father as Ext.E; (5) Certified copy of voters list of 1993 containing the name of Esab Ali, Noorjan, Habijudin, Mofijuddin and Abdul Rahim as voter of Vill- Pachim Moirabari as Ext.F; and (6) Copy of computer jamabandi for Vill- Moirabari wherein the name of Ramjan Ali S/O- Esab Ali is seen as Ext.G.
5. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciating the materials available on record, discarded the evidence of voters list of 1965 (Ext.B) and voters list of 1970 (Ext.C) by disbelieving the evidence of the petitioner because as per his projected age, the petitioner ought to have got his voting rights in the year 1972 and moreover, the voters list of the year 1977 (Ext.D) contained only one standalone entry of the petitioner without any other projected family members. The learned Tribunal had also disbelieved the entries in the voters list of 1985 (Ext.E) because as per entries m
Motior Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
Haidar Ali v. Union of India & Ors.
Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (Md.) v. Union of India & Ors.
Basiron Bibi v. Union of India & Ors.
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to insufficient evidence of citizenship, emphasizing the importance of credible documentation.
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.
In citizenship determination proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the individual to establish ancestral linkage through consistent, corroborated documentary evidence. Mere production of documents....
Review petitions in citizenship cases require new evidence or errors apparent on record, not mere re-hearing of previous arguments.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual claiming it, and failure to provide credible evidence results in a declaration of foreigner status.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship through credible evidence, and discrepancies in documentation can lead to a declaration of foreign nationality.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring reliable evidence and clear documentation to establish claims.
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.