The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish citizenship, including providing adequate documentary evidence of lineage and continuous residence, which he failed to do.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. A.W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 25.03.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Barpeta 11th, in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 1536/2017, corresponding to P.E. No. IM(D)T Case No. 5391(A), dated 3/8 (sic.), by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner.

3. At the outset, it is seen that though the opinion was passed on 25.03.2021 in a contested proceedings, this writ petition has been filed on 20.12.2024. Accordingly, the issue of maintainability of the challenge on account of delay is also required to be taken up.

4. Pursuant to notice issued by order dated 10.01.2025, the records of the Tribunal is received. The learned counsel for both sides given ample opportunity to examine the records.

5. As per the records, notice to the petitioner was issued by order dated 28.02.2019, which was returned after service and after several adjournments, the petitioner had filed his written statement on 17.09.2019. After taking several adjournments, the petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and he was cross- examined by the learned AGP and discharged. The petitioner had also examined one Nur Islam Talukdar as DW-2 on 10.02.2021 and the said witness was also cross-examined and discharged. The matter was heard on 22.02.2021. It may be stated that all the exhibited documents were marked as Ext.1 to Ext.10 on 10.02.2021. The opinion was passed on 25.03.2021.

6. In his written statement, the petitioner has stated that the allegation made by the prosecution was false, baseless and concocted and brought against the petitioner out of wrong presumption without proper investigation. He claimed that Late Moksed Ali was his father and Late Rejia Khatun was his mother and his father’s name was recorded in the NRC of village- Barbala, Mouza- Bhabanipur in the district of Barpeta and thereafter, his father had shifted to Kaljhar village, Mouza- Betbari, PS- Howly in the district of Barpeta. His father died in the year 1973 due to Cholera. Then, after giving up all relation with petitioner’s father, his mother along with the petitioner’s brother Rezzak Talukdar came to the house of his maternal grandfather’s house at village- Bilortari, Mouza- Rupsi, PS- Kalgachia in the district of Barpeta. The name of his maternal grandfather was Late Kalim Uddin @ Kalimuddin. The petitioner claims that Late Naimuddin was his maternal forefather. Thereafter, the petitioner was born in the year 1973 at village- Bilortari, Mouza- Rupsi, PS- Kalgachia in the district of Barpeta.

7. The petitioner claims that his father had mental disorder and accordingly, his name was not recorded in the voter list of 1966, 1970 and 1973. The petitioner claims that Late Ahadulla was his grandfather and Late Jamela Khatun was his grandmother. He does not have any paternal uncle or aunt or sister. Late Jaleman Nessa is his maternal grandmother. Nur Islam @ Nur Islam Talukdar is his maternal uncle, whose name along with his wife Majeda Khatun and the name of his mother appeare