Mujibur Rahman vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3053 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/11

GAHC010268932017




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                   Case No. : WP(C)/3/2018

            MUJIBUR RAHMAN
            S/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR
            VILL- RAOARPAR
            P.S. MURAJHAR, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
            REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF
            HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

            2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
             HOME AND POLITICAL (B) DEPARTMENT
             DISPUR

            3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
             HOJAI
            ASSAM

            4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             HOJAI
            ASSAM

            5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE

             MURAJHAR POLICE STATION
             HOJAI
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B C DAS
                                                                                Page No.# 2/11

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

Before HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 24.11.2021

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

[N. Kotiswar Singh, J.]

Heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahakar,

learned CGC appearing for respondent no.1 & 6; Mr. J Payeng, learned Special Counsel, F.T.

appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5; and Ms. K. Phukan, learned State Counsel, Assam,

appearing for the respondent no.4.

2. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned opinion dated 09.12.2017

passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No.7 th, Lanka, Nagaon, Assam, in

F.T./L/Case No.506/2016 arising out of IM(D)T Case No.674/2003, by holding that the

petitioner is an illegal immigrant, who entered India after 25.03.1971 without any valid

documents.

3. It appears that the petitioner had relied on several documents which were exhibited as

Exhibit-1 to 15 and also examined himself as D.W.1. Other witnesses were also examined,

namely, the Headmaster and Gaonburah. However, the Tribunal after considering the

materials available on record held that the petitioner had not been able to discharge his Page No.# 3/11

burden cast upon him to prove that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner.

4. We have perused the LCR and minutely examined the opinion dated 19.12.2017

passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No.7 th, Lanka, Nagaon, Assam, in

F.T./L/Case No.506/2016 arising out of IM(D)T Case No.674/2003. After examining the

records minutely, we find that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidences on

records and the reasons in our view are as follows:

5. (i) As regards the Exhibit-1, the Tribunal had made following observation:

"Ext-1 is the certified copy of the voter list of 1954 in which according to OP, the names of his father, grandmother are mentioned including the name of step grandmother's son, being the residents of village Niyamotpur Mouza, P.S.- Katlichara, Dist.-Kachar. The LAC number has not mentioned in the said Ext.-1."

Perusal of the Exhibit-1 would show that though the number of the Legislative

Constituency is not mentioned on the top of the document the same is signed by the Electoral

Registration Officer of LA-7 Katlicherra and accordingly, we are of the view that such exhibit

could not have been ignored by the Tribunal merely on the ground that the LAC has not been

mentioned on the top of the document.

(ii) Coming to Exhibit-2 & 3, the observation of the Tribunal is as follows:

"Exts-2 & 3 are the certified copies of the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 in which according to the OP the names of his maternal grandparents and father's name is mentioned being the residents of village-Rowarpar, P.S.-Murajhar under No.93 Hojai LAC. OP's father's age is shown as in Ext.-2 (1966) as 30 years, which should be 34 years in terms of Exbt.-1 (1954). That apart, OP's grandfather's name is mentioned as Kused in the said two exhibits in place of Kushed Ali as OP deposed his grandfather's name at the time of cross."

Page No.# 4/11

Thus, from the above it is seen that the Tribunal ignored the said 2 (two) exhibits

on the ground that the OP's grandfather's name was mentioned as Kused in Exhibit nos.

1 & 2 and the OP had deposed his grandfather's name as Kushed Ali. We are of the view

that said discrepancy is minor one. The discrepancy in the name of ' Kused' and 'Kushed

Ali' is minor when other particulars appear to be same. Further, the difference in age of

the petitioner's father i.e. 30 and 34 years does not appear to be a wide variation to

make any material difference.

(iii) As regard Exhibit-3(i), the Tribunal has said it is not admissible since it is merely a

photocopy.

We do not wish to make any comment in this regard.

(iv) As regards Ext. 4 & 5, the Tribunal made following observations:

"Exts-4 & 5 are the certified copies of the voter lists of 1985 & 1997, which include the name of OP's parents along with other members of the family, OP's grandfather's name in the said Exts are mentioned as Korsed Ali and Kursed instead of Khursed Ali. The age of OP's mother is shown as 34 years in Exts-4 (1985), in that way her name must have inclusion at least in the voter list of 1970, but unfortunately OP's mother's name is missing in Ext.-3 (1970). Same is the case with Ext.-5 (1997) in the age of OP's parents. The OP produced the certified copies of voter list of 2005, 2010 and 2016, which OP annexed as Exts.-6,7 and 8. The grandfather's name in all the said exhibits are mentioned as Kursed Ali in place of Khursed Ali."

As we have already discussed above, that there may be difference in the pronunciation as

well as in the spelling of someone's name. The Tribunal could have verified the particulars of

the petitioner's grandfather in other aspects instead of emphasizing on the minor differences

in the spelling 'Kursed Ali' or 'Khursed Ali'. We are of the view that such difference is minor Page No.# 5/11

and can be ignored.

Similarly, as regards the age of the petitioner's parents shown in the voters list, though

there is some difference of age in the voters list, it is also now well settled that the voter list

does not necessarily reflect the correct age of a person and as such, merely because there

are some differences of age of the petitioner's parents in the voters list, the same may not be

the sole ground for ignoring the same, if there is similarity in other particulars.

On examination of Exhibits-4 & 5 we have noted that other particulars i.e. the name of

the village: Rowarpar, P.S.-Murajhar Mouza Namati Mahakuma-Hojai, District-Nagaon are

same and these voters lists relate to 90 Jamunamukh and as such, other particulars being the

same, merely because of certain minor discrepancies in the age and name, the said

documents ought not to have been ignored by the Tribunal.

(v) As regards Exhibits- 2 to 8, the Tribunal made the following observations:

"After Ext.-1 (1954) in all the Exts. from 2 to 8 (in all the certified copies from Exts. 2 to 8), OP's grandfather name has no mentioned as Khursed Ali. It is clear that Ext-1 has no relevancy with Exts.-2 to 8. Abdul Sattar mentioned in Ext.-1 is a different person, from Exts-2 to 8. It is to be mentioned here that the electors name enlisted in Sl. No.-272, and 273 in Ext.-1 (1954) has not any mentioned in the list of the Exts, that OP produced for his claim. What happen to these persons has no explanation anywhere."

(vi) Coming to Exhibit-9 the Tribunal made the observations as follows:

"Ext-9 is the residency certificate issued by the Govt. Gaonburah in the name of the OP certifying his residential address without any specific time period. Though the Govt. Gaonburah was present before this Tribunal. It is no help in regards to the discussions mention above for OP's Claim."

Page No.# 6/11

Though the Gaoburah had appeared before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ignored the said

exhibits merely on the ground that the said certificate does not contain specific time period of

the residency. We are of the view that merely because the specific time period was not

mentioned cannot be a ground to reject it in totality as it would have a bearing as to the

residence of a person when the certificate was issued. Since the Gaonburah had appeared,

any such doubt could have been clarified from him.

(vi) As regards Exhibit-9 (ka), the opinion of the Tribunal is as follows:

Ext.-9 (ka) is a certified issued by the Secretary B.D.P. contending OP's residential address, but the same his no proof in accordance with law.

We do not wish to make any observation in this regard.

(vii) As regards Exhibit-10 the opinion of the Tribunal is as follows:

"Ext.-10 is the school certificate issued by the Headmaster Pubjaruni ME School in the name of the OP. The Headmaster of the said school is present before this Tribunal to proof contents of the said certificate. The very purpose of it fails as the certificate is in the name of Muzibur Rahman Laskar, S/o Abdul Sattar Laskar and not in the name of Muzibur Rahman, S/o Abdul Sattar, in terms of OP's own deposition at the time of cross as his and his father's name. The OP nowhere mentioned as their surname as Laskar. No explanation/affidavit has been filed by the OP in this regards."

Thus, the Tribunal ignored the said certificate on the ground that in the said certificate the

name is written as Muzibur Rahman Laskar though the name of the petitioner is Muzibur

Rahman. From the records what we have noted that at the time of cross-examination no such

question was asked questioning or doubting the identity of the aforesaid person and also

about the alleged discrepancies in the name i.e. Muzibur Rahman Laskar and Muzibur Page No.# 7/11

Rahman. Since the Headmaster was very much present before the Tribunal, the Tribunal

ought to have clarified the same which, however, does not appear to have been done.

Accordingly, we are of the view that ignoring the said certificate also is not proper.

(viii) As regards the copy of the Jamabandi which is exhibited as Exhibit-11, the opinion of

the Tribunal is as follows:

"Ext-11 is the copy of Jamabandi in which the name of his father is mentioned after granting mutation of a plot of land. Exts.-12 & 13 are some of the very old land revenue paid receipts which cannot clarify, whether the land is still on possession or not. That apart, the Jamabandi has no mentioned to which period it belongs. As such, Exts.-11, 12 and 13 cannot said to be the conclusive proof for OP's claim of Indian citizen."

Apart from Exhibit-11 there are other 2 (two) exhibits i.e. Exibit-12 & 13 which are very old

receipts in original. All these documents are dated 12.01.1967, 22.02.1975 and 20.03.1972.

We are of the view that these original documents could not have been ignored by the

Tribunal.

6. It may be mentioned that Section 90 in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that

where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any

custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that

the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting

of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document

executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it

purports to be executed and attested.

Thus, in our view these 3 (three) documents deserve to be considered in the light of

Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act which does not appear to have been done.

Page No.# 8/11

The Jamabandi copy, which had also been relied, is a certified copy and the Tribunal

could not have ignored the same.

(ix) Similarly, in respect of Exhibit-14 the opinion of the Tribunal is as follows:

"Ext.-14 is another copy of Jamabandi in which according to the OP, the name of his mother is mentioned as pattadar after granting mutation. But the OP cannot claim his citizenship status on the basis of the documents from his maternal side. Moreover, the same is not proof as per the provisions of law."

The Tribunal ignored the said Jamabandi on the ground that OP cannot claim his status of

citizenship on the basis of the documents from the maternal side. We cannot agree with such

an observation as the Tribunal is to consider each and every bit of evidence relied upon by

the proceedee which is relevant. Each and every relevant document must be examined along

with other documents so produced as it may not be possible to prove citizenship of a person

merely on a single piece of evidence. The cumulative effect of the documents and evidences

so adduced has to be taken into consideration in deciding the issue of citizenship and as

such, ignoring the said exhibit on the ground that he cannot prove his citizenship status from

the maternal side does not appear to be correct.

(x) As regards Ext.15, the Tribunal made the following observation:

" Ext.15 is an affidavit sworn in by the OP regarding some discrepancies of his age in some exhibits produced by him. But it can be of no assistance for his help, as an affidavit is no evidentiary value."

From the above it is evident that the Tribunal ignored the Ext.-15 by stating that the said

affidavit could be of no assistance to explain the discrepancies in the petitioner's age as it had

no evidentiary value. We cannot agree with the aforesaid opinion, inasmuch as, the petitioner

has tried to explain the discrepancies in age by filing the affidavit which is a sworn statement Page No.# 9/11

and it ought to have been considered on its own right along with other evidences.

7. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated

the evidences on record and accordingly, the petitioner can be given another opportunity to

prove his case before the Tribunal.

8. We accordingly remit the matter to the Tribunal for re-consideration and pass a fresh

order in the light of the observation made by us as regards the appreciation of the evidences

on record.

9. The importance of citizenship has been highlighted in other decisions of this Court.

Citizenship is one of the most important rights of a person in today's world. It is the key to

enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by law of the land. It is through citizenship that a person

can enjoy and enforce fundamental rights and other legal rights conferred by the Constitution

and other statutes, without which a person cannot lead a meaningful life with dignity. A

person stripped of citizenship could be rendered a stateless person, if any other country

refuses to accept him or her as its citizen. Such is the overarching significance and

importance of citizenship to a person. Therefore, any such proceeding which has the potential

of depriving citizenship ought to be accordingly, examined from that perspective also. In a

normal proceeding before a court of law, in spite of any adverse finding, the person will

continue to enjoy the rights as a citizen. Though a proceeding under the Foreigners' Tribunal,

is merely quasi-judicial in nature, yet an adverse opinion by the Tribunal that the proceedee is

a foreigner almost seals the fate of the proceedee as far as the issue of citizenship is

concerned, as the authorities are expected to declare such a person a foreigner in terms of

the opinion of the Tribunal and he would be liable to be detained and deported. Thus, Page No.# 10/11

ordinarily, such an opinion of the Tribunal, in our view, ought to be given after properly

analyzing all the relevant evidence that may be produced by the proceedee and not by

ignoring any relevant evidence as has been done in the present case.

10. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration by

setting aside the impugned order 19.12.2017 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon

Court No.7th, Lanka, Nagaon, Assam, in F.T./L/Case No.506/2016 arising out of IM(D)T Case

No.674/2003.

11. Accordingly, the petitioner shall appear before the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No.7 th

at Lanka, Nagaon on 28.12.2021 and thereafter, the learned Tribunal will pass a fresh opinion

in the light of the observations made by us as regards the appreciation of the evidences on

record.

12. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal,

Nagaon No.7th at Lanka, Nagaon on 28.12.2021, the earlier order passed by the learned

Foreigners Tribunal on 19.12.2017 will stand revived and the order passed by this Court

today will stand vacated and law will take its course.

13. Since the petitioner is already on bail, he would continue to remain on bail on similar

terms and conditions till the appropriate fresh opinion is rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal,

Nagaon No.7th at Lanka, Nagaon, Assam.

14. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

15. Copy of this order be furnished to the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon for doing

the needful.

Page No.# 11/11

16. Let the LCR of the concerned Foreigners Tribunal be remitted immediately.

                                       JUDGE                                  JUDGE



Comparing Assistant