SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14322

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
ABDUS CHATTAR @ SATTAR ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. – Respondent
WP(C) 4308 / 2019



GAHC010135432019

2026:GAU-AS:6320 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/4308/2019 ABDUS CHATTAR @ SATTAR ALI D/O- LT MAHEJ ALI, VILL- NO.6 JAMDOHA, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST-

BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783392 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS.

REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1

2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT.

DISPUR GHY-6

4:THE ASSAM CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH ASSAM GHY-5

5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783392

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)

DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783392

7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE MANIKPUR P.S.

DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783392

8:DEWAN ABDUR RAHIM ADVOCATE BONGAIGAON BAR ASSOCIATION P.O.

P.S. AND DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78339 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr.H.R. Ahmed Advocate for the respondent(s):Mr.G.Sarma, SC Home Department Mr.P. Sarma, GA, Assam, Mr.N.Kalita, Mr A.I. Ali, SC, ECI Date on which judgment was reserved :28.04.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the :

operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced?

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

(Shamima Jahan, J.)

Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, and Mr N Kalita, learned counsel representing Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI.

2. By this application filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the opinion dated 31.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, Assam, in FT Case No. BNGN/FT/521/07, corresponding to IM(D)T Case No. 164 of 2005, whereby the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post-

25.03.1971 stream.

FACTS

3. The petitioner had stated that he was born and brought up at Village- Shoilbari (Mulbari), PS-North Salmara, in the district of Goalpara, Assam, and that he is the son of Late Mahej Ali and Jarina Bewa, and that he is permanently residing at Village No. 6, Jamdoha, P.S.-Manikpur, in the district of Bongaigaon along with his family members.

4. The petitioner further stated that in the voters’ list of 1970, his parents’ names were recorded as Mahej Ali, son of Taher Ali and Jarina Khatun at Serial No. 43 and 44, respectively, at Village-350 Malbari Balarchar, under Abhayapuri (SC) LA 42. He further stated that his father’s name was recorded in Final Khatian Form No. VII, as Mahej Ali under Khatian No. 57, Village-Malbari, in the district of Goalpara. He, thereafter, stated that in the voters’ list of 1985, his name was recorded as a voter along with his mother, under 34 Abhayapuri North LAC. He also relied on the Jamabandi, wherein it was shown that he was one of the owner of a plot of land under Dag No. 155, Patta No. 09, and in the said Jamabandi, his name was shown as Chattar Ali, son of Mahej Ali. The petitioner also relied upon the family Ration Card, issued by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Bongaigaon, wherein his name was recorded along with other family members. Thereafter, he relied on the certificate issued by the Secretary of Bhandara Gaon Panchayat, where he was shown to be the son of Mohej Uddin of Village-Jamdoha in the district of Bongaigaon. He also stated that there are some spelling mistakes in the name of his grandfather, father and mother, and that there were also some anomalies with regard to the age, but the same may be ignored and they may be considered as one and the same person. However, he stated that the Superintendent of Police (B), Bongaigaon, doubted his citizenship and on the basis of the report of the ERO, the SP(B) referred the case to the learned Foreigne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top