The burden of proving citizenship rests entirely on the individual. In exercising supervisory jurisdiction, the court does not act as an appellate body and will not reweigh evidence or interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse or suffer from procedural illegality.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, 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 opinion rendered vide impugned order dated 24.06.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal no.3rd , Morigaon in F.T. Case No. 10/2015. 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.

2. The facts of the case may be put in a nutshell as follows:

(i) A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. Case No. 10/2015.

(ii) As per requirement u/s 9 of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946 to prove that the proceedee is not a foreigner, the petitioner had filed the written statement on 08.10.2015 along with certain documents.

(iii) The learned Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances and taking into account of the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 had come to a finding that the petitioner, as opposite party had failed to discharge the burden cast upon him and accordingly, the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national post 25.03.1971.

3. We have heard Shri J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department& NRC;Ms. R.B. Bora, learned GA, Assam and Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India.We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 03.02.2021.

4. Shri Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could prove his case with cogent evidence and in view of the fact that there was no rebuttal evidence, the learned Tribunal should have accepted the said proof and accordingly hold the petitioner to be a citizen of India. In this regard, he has referred to his evidence adduced as DW1 and also the following documentary evidence.

Ext. A Land Document of Selamot SK, grandfather of OP

Ext. B 1966 voter list of Nantu father of OP.

Ext. C 1970 voter list of Nantu.

Ext. D 1993 voter list of Abdul Rahim father of OP.

Ext. E 1993 voter list of OP.

Ext. F Land document of Abdul Rahim

Ext. G Gaonburah Certificate.

Ext. H JamabandiCopy of Selamot for the year of 1930-31

Ext. I Affidavit for discrepancy in the name of OP’s father.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that in the written statement, all material disclosures were made. It is submitted that a Sale Deed dated 19.08.1948 with the purchaser as Selamot who has been projected as the grandfather was proved as Ext. 8. The Voters Lists of the years 1966 and 1970 containing the name of the projected father – Nantuhave been proved as Exts. B& C. Thereafter, a Voters List of 1993 has been proved as Ext.-D in which however the name of the projected father has been stated as “A. Rahim” and thereafter, the Voters List of 1983 has been proved in which the name of the petitioner is reflected as Ismail, son of “A. Rahim”.The petitioner has also relied upon a Sale Deed of the year 1976 executed by one Abdul Rahim (Ext. F). Reliance has been made upon a certificate by the Gaon Burah which was exhibited as Ext.G. The petitioner had relied upon a jamabandi copy of the period 1930-31 containing the name of his projected grandfather Selamot Sheikh. He has also relied upon an affidavit executed by him trying to explain the discrepancy