The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act rests exclusively on the individual. Without consistent and reliable documentary evidence establishing familial linkage to ancestors by the prescribed cut-off date, oral testimony and non-contemporaneous certificates are insufficient to discharge this legal burden.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(Pranjal Das, J)

1. Heard Shri R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department and N.R.C.; Ms. A. Phookan, GA, Assam; Shri. N. Kalita, (on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI); Ms. P.R. Choudhury (on behalf of Mr. H. Gupta, CGC).

2. The petitioner, namely, Dilowara Begum has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to file this writ petition against the order Judgment and order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 7 Barpeta in F.T. Case No.331/2017 corresponding to R/IM(D)T Case No. 6223/1998. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and opinion dated 06.09.2019, the petitioner as proceedee who faced the reference proceedings before the learned Tribunal was declared a foreigner and illegal migrant, who had entered India/Assam on or after 25.03.1971.

3. Aggrieved by the said finding and opinion, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition before this Court. The facts may be narrated here in below:-

4. The case was originally forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, (Border) Barpeta under the IM(D)T Act, as it existed then, by Reference No. IMDT No. 6223 of 1998 to decide the nationality of the petitioner expressing doubts regarding the same.

5. Subsequently, upon striking down of the IM(D)T Act, 1983, all the cases pending under the said Act were transferred to the Foreigners Tribunals under the Foreigners Act. Accordingly, the present proceeding was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No.7 Barpeta, vide order dated 02.11.2015. Thereafter, the F.T. Case No. 331 of 2017 was registered by the concerned Tribunal and notice was issued to the petitioner as proceedee.

6. Upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner, as proceedee appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written statement, denying the allegations of being an illegal migrant and prayed for dismissal of the reference proceeding.

7. Subsequently, during the proceeding, the petitioner, as proceedee adduced evidence of three witnesses, including herself and two other witnesses. As part of her evidence, the petitioner, as proceedee also exhibited-9 (nine) documents, being Exhibit-A to Exhibit-I.

8. However, upon adjudication of the matter, the learned Tribunal did not find merit in the case of the petitioner and she was declared an illegal migrant post 25.03.1971 stream. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition was filed.

9. As mentioned above, upon receiving notice the petitioner as proceedee appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed her written statement denying the allegations of being an illegal migrant and contending that the Inquiry Officer did not enquire into the matter properly and unjustifiably made the reference suspecting her to be a foreigner. The petitioner stated in her written statement that she was born and brought up at village Bhayrarpam under the jurisdiction of Baghbar P.S. in the district of Barpeta. She stated that her father was late Rakman Miya @ Rahman Mallik, son of late Katu Miya and that her mother's name was Lal Bhanu Begum @ Lal Bhanu. She further stated that her grandfather's name was late Kato Miya and he expired before 1966 and that the petitioner's father expired 28 years ago and that her mothe