The burden of proof to establish citizenship lies on the person asserting it, requiring credible evidence of lineage and personal knowledge.

JUDGMENT :

S.P. Khaund, J.

The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by putting to challenge the judgment and order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Nagaon Court No. 10^th at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in F.T. (D) Case No. 1585/2016 corresponding to S.P.’s FT Case 74/2015. By the impugned judgment, the petitioner, who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal, has been declared to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971.

Factual Matrix :-

2. The petitioner in this case is Musstt. Bilatun Nessa. On the basis of an enquiry, a reference was issued by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Hojai (respondent No. 4) against the petitioner and the Foreigners Tribunal registered the aforementioned FT(D) Case No.1585/2016 corresponding to S.P.’s FT Case 74/2015.

3. Notice was issued to the petitioner and it was held that notice was duly served as per Section 3(5) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 (Order of 1964 for short) on the petitioner, who appeared before the Tribunal on 27.04.2016 but failed to appear thereafter and this case proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner vide order dated 24.05.2016.

4. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was registered as WP(C) No. 4506/2016 and vide order dated 08.09.2016, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal and the petitioner, thereafter, contested the proceeding and filed her written statement. The petitioner adduced the evidence of 2 (Two) witnesses and exhibited several documents.

Arguments for the petitioner :-

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the voters list dating back to 1966 and the Annual Kheraj patta of 1948, have been produced but the learned Tribunal has erroneously failed to draw lineage of the petitioner with her father, whose name is reflected in the voters’ list of 1966.

6. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s father had two wives and the name of her step- mother is also reflected in the voters’ list of 1966. It is contended that the petitioner has also produced the land documents but this has not been taken into consideration. The petitioner has also produced the jamabandi as the link document which has been ignored by the Tribunal.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the note in the jamabandi depicts that there was an error in recording the name of Montaj A li and the petitioner’s father’s name Mostan Ali has been corrected.

8. The remaining part of the argument on behalf of the petitioner shall be discussed at the appropriate stage.

Arguments for the respondents :-

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Home Department and NRC, Mr. J. Payeng, laid stress in his argument that the written statement is opaque. The petitioner has not mentioned about her step-mother in the written statement. The Annual Kheraj Patta, marked as Exhibit-2, reflects the name of the petitioner’s father as Montaj Ali, whereas the petitioner’s father’s name figures as Mostan Ali in the voters’ list of 1966, marked as Exhibit-1. There is a correction in the jamabandi, but this correction was not required as the correction was made on 05.05.2016, after registration of this case on 31.03.2016. Even then, it is noticed in the jamabandi marked as Exhibit-3 that the petitioner’s father’s name although corrected to Mostan Ali, the name of her grandfather in the jamabandi is not similar to the name of the petitioner’s projected grandfather. The re