The burden of proof rests on the claimant to provide consistent documentary evidence. When significant discrepancies exist in age, identity, and genealogical links across historical records, such evidence is insufficient to establish citizenship, and the tribunal's findings on such facts are entitled to deference.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Kalita, J.

Heard Mr. A. Kaddus, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondent no. 6; and Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home & Political Department (B).

2. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the opinion dated 30.01.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 4th, Kamrup (M) in F.T. Case No. FT (K (M)-4)969/17, corresponding to I.M.(D).T. Act Case No. 1331/03, holding that the petitioner is a foreigner who entered the State of Assam after 25.03.1971.

3. The petitioner’s case is that he was born in the year 1989 at village Merganda (Jharpara), under P.S. Chaygaon, in the district of Kamrup (R), Assam. It is contended that the petitioner’s grandparents were originally belonged to village Natapara, P.S. Lakhipur in the district of erstwhile Goalpara, Assam. Thereafter, his grandparents had shifted their residence in the year of 1956 from village Natapara to village Birsing Helengarchar in the same district due to river erosion and in the year 1956 itself, the father of the petitioner was born at the said village Birsing Helengarchar. In the year 1974, due to the river erosion in the village Birsing Helengarchar, the grandparents of the petitioner shifted their residence to Jamirabari in the same district of Goalpara. It is contended that again in the year 1987, they shifted to village Merganda (Jharpara), under P.S. Chaygaon in the district of Kamrup (R), Assam, due to the river erosion in Jamirabari village. It is contended that since the grandparents of the petitioner are of residence of the State of Assam, the petitioner is an Indian citizen.

4. It is seen that the petitioner’s case was referred by the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, vide Case 1331/03, dated 08.06.04, expressing doubt about the nationality of the procedee/petitioner under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946, seeking an o5p. inion about the citizenship of the petitioner.

5. The learned Member Foreigners’ Tribunal 4th , Kamrup (M), Assam, after following the due procedure of hearing the parties, finally delivered its opinion on 30.04.2019, wherein, the petitioner was found to be a foreigner who had entered the State of Assam after 25.03.1971.

6. During the proceedings before the aforesaid learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, the petitioner had filed his written statement, wherein he had stated that he is a citizen of India, born in the State of Assam. He had stated that he is the son of Sukumuddin Talukdar, presently residing at village Merganda (Jharpara), under P.S. Chhaygaon in the district of Kamrup, Assam. He contended that his grandfather, namely, Hosen Ali Talukdar was a resident of 56, Natapara village, under P.S. Lakhipur in the district of Goalpara and his grandfather’s name appeared in the National Register of Citizen (NRC) for the year 1951. In the written statement, in support of his case, he has relied on as many as 13(thirteen) documents, including the voter lists, wherein he claimed that his grandparents’, his parents’ and his name appeared. The petitioner had also filed his evidence on affidavit, wherein he had reiterated the statements that he had made in his written statement and relied on the documents that had been mentioned in the written statement. The documents were exhibited as Exibit-A to Exhibit-M. The petitioner had also in suppo