order

For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Borgohain, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Medhi, CGC, Ms. A. Verma, Special Counsel, F.T., Mr. A Bhuyan, Standing Counsel, ECI Ms. U. Das, State Counsel, Assam, Ms. L. Devi, Standing Counsel, NRC Date of Hearing & Judgment : 10.11.2021

Judgment and Order (Oral)

[N. Kotiswar Singh, J]

Heard Mr. B. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned Special Counsel, F.T.

appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 7; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No.4, Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, appearing for the respondent no.5 and Ms. U. Das, learned State Counsel, Assam, appearing for the respondent no.6.

2. Considering the nature of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for the parities, we are of the view that the present petition can be disposed of at this stage without issuing any formal notice to the respondents.

3. Records have been received and we have perused the records.

4. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the ex parte order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.9, Sonitpur, Dhekiajuli, Assam, in F.T. Case No.19/2016, by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner. The Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal even after notice was deemed to have been served as he was not in the village. The Tribunal had noted that in the service report produced before the Tribunal on 19.07.2016, it has been notified by the Tribunal that the proceedee had left his last residence without informing the investigating officer and thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on a wall on the last residence of the Opp. Party in presence of the local Gaonburha i.e. Pratap Rajput who put his signature on the notice as witness.

5. We have perused the original notice. However, it is not mentioned in the report of the process server that the notice was affixed on a wall in the residence last resided by the Opposite Party. The process server merely mentioned that it was affixed in presence of the Gaonburah. Thus, it is not very clear from the records as to whether the notice was really affixed on the wall of the residence of the petitioner where the petitioner last resided. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner that he was not served notice as according to him the notice was not pasted on a wall in the residence where the petitioner last resided.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits in Para-10 of the petition that the petitioner came to know from some of his friends in the month of May, 2019 that he had been declared a foreigner by an ex parte order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.9, Sonitpur at Dhekiajuli in F.T. Case No.19/2016 and accordingly, after coming to know about the same, he had obtained the certified copy of the order dated 09.08.2016 and approached this Court by challenging the ex parte order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sufficient documentary evidences in his possession which would prove that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a certain document which shows that the father of the petitioner had purchased a land under Dag no.78 of periodic patta no.13 at village Asurmari, Mauza Dhekiajuli, P.S. Dhekiajuli, in which regard a sale deed was executed in the office of the Sub-Registrar Tezpur district Darrang in the year 1969 and the petitioner claims that he is in possession of the original registered sale deed and as the said document is quite old, he had obtained a certified copy of the same from the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Tezpur. The petitioner has also stated that the mother of the petitioner, namly, Rajbala Das, had been also declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Sonitp