Gauhati High Court
Sebatan Bibi @ Sebatan Nessa vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 5 April, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010183162018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5700/2018
SEBATAN BIBI @ SEBATAN NESSA
W/O- JALAL SHEIKH, D/O- INNAS ALI SHEIKH, R/O- VILL- CHAR BHASANI,
P.S. DHUBRI, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783301
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRAR OF CITIZENS (NRC)
GHY-5
ASSAM
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 78330
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A A DEWAN
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
:: O R D E R ::
(ORAL)
05.04.2022
[N. Kotiswar Singh, J]
Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI for respondent
No.1; Ms. Devi also appears for respondent No.3 as the learned Standing Counsel, NRC; Mr.
A.I. Ali learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3; Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior
Govt., Assam for respondent No.4 and Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners
Tribunal appearing for the respondent No.5.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated
29.05.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dhubri in F.T. Case No.
1443/D/2010 [Ref. Case No.IM(D)T/R/474/98] by which the learned Tribunal declared the
petitioner as a foreigner who entered illegally into India after 25.03.1971.
3. The effective portion of the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned
Tribunal reads as follows:
"On perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 Sebatan Bibi in her cross-examination has
deposed that she was born in her parents home at Vill. Suapata Pt.-V, P.O. Saupata, P.S.
Bilasipara Dist. Dhubri, presently proceedee Sebatan Bibi is residing at her husband's house at
Vill. Charbhasani River N.C., P.S. & Dist. Dhubri. O.P's parental grand father is late Mogal.
O.P's father Late Innas Ali Sk passed away before 11 years ago. O.P's mother is Late Abran
Nessa. O.P's father name Innas Ali Sheikh appeared in the voters list of 1966 (Ext.2). It also
appears that the O.P's parents name Innas Ali Sk and Abran Nessa appeared in the voter list of
1970 (Ext.4). But in this voters list O.P's grand father against O.P's father's name has been
shown as Mokibul.
Mere statement of the proceedee can not on reliance that her projected grandfather name
Mokibul as per voter list of 1966 (Ext.2) and 1970 (Ext.4) against the relation column of her
father where it is crystal clear that the name of her grandfather was Mogal as per subsequent
voter list of 1970 against the relation column of her father Mogal but not Mokibul. The father of
Page No.# 3/5
the proceedee was not the son of Mokibul but was the son of Mogal."
4. Before we examine the validity of the said opinion we would like to mention as
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed as many as 12
(twelve) documents before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal did not advert
to those documents relied on by the petitioner but referred to only voters lists of 1966 (Ext.2)
and 1970 (Ext.4) and evidence of the petitioner herself.
5. On perusal of the impugned opinion dated 29.05.2018 rendered by the learned
Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal found discrepancies in the name of the
petitioner's grandfather. Learned Tribunal observed that in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970,
the names of the petitioner's grandfather has been recorded as "Mokibul". However, in the
subsequent voters list of 1970, petitioner's grandfather's name has been recorded as "Mogal".
Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the said discrepancy is sufficient to discredit the
evidence.
6. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal without adverting to the other evidences which were
relied on by the petitioner came to the finding that the petitioner had failed to prove herself
to be a daughter of genuine Indian parents and thus failed to discharg her burden of proof as
provided in Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Section 106 of the Evidence Act,
1872 and declared her a foreigner who illegally entered into India after 25.03.1971.
7. We have gone through the original records requisitioned by this Court.
8. We have noted that the petitioner had exhibited as many as 12 (twelve) documents
including various voters lists and the land document etc. However, there is no reference about
those documents except the voters lists of 1966 and 1970, which were discarded by the
learned Tribunal on the ground that the name of the petitioner's grandfather vary in these
documents. Though the petitioner's grandfather's name has been shown as Mokbul Fakir in
the voters list of 1966 and Mokbul in the voters list of 1970, what we find is that the other
particulars appear to be same.
In the voters list of 1966, the petitioner's grandfather's name has been shown as
"Mokbul Fakir", father of Innas Ali Sheikh in respect of District- Dhubri, P.S. Bilasipara, , name
of the polling boot-284 Suapata Part V, Part No. 145 36 Bilasipara L.A.C., Serial No.347.
Page No.# 4/5
Similarly, in the voters list of 1970, petitioner's grandfather's name has been shown as
"Mokbul", father of Innas Ali Sheikh, Sub-Div- Dhubri, Bilasipara, P.S.- Bilashipara, P.O.
Bilashipara, District-Goalpara/Dhubri, Part No.146, Vill- Saupata Part V, 36 Bilasipara L.A.C.36
Bilasipara.
However, in the subsequent voters list of 1985, the petitioner's grandfather's name has
been shown as "Mughal Sheikh" father of Innas Ali in respect of Village-Suapata Part V,
District- Dhubri, Sub-Div- Dhubri, P.S.- Bilasipara, in respect of 29 Bilasipara East L.A.C. and in
the voters list of 1993, petitioner's grandfather's name has been shown as "Mughal", father of
Innas Ali in respect of Vill-Suapata Part V, District- Dhubri, Sub-Div- Bilashipara, P.S.-
Bilasipara, 27 Bilasipara East L.A.C.
In the voters lists, the name of the village, sub-division, Police station, Post Office and
District are same relating to 36 Bilasipara L.A.C..
9. Accordingly, we are of the view that merely there is slight difference in the name of
the grandfather as mentioned above, in view of the similarity in other parameters of the
voters lists, we are of the view that the said difference is not substantial as to doubt the
genuineness of the documents including the voters lists of 1966 or to the claim of the
petitioner that Mokbul Fakir and Mokbul are one and same person.
10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the aforesaid discrepancy being not
substantial and since the learned Tribunal has not referred to any other evidences on record
which have been exhibited and relied on by the petitioner, the opinion rendered by the
learned Tribunal will be required to re-examined. The learned Tribunal has to re-examine the
matter and make a re-assessment of the evidences on record and pass a fresh opinion in the
light of the observation made above.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned opinion
dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dhubri in F.T. Case
No.1443/D/2010 [Ref. Case No.IM(D)T/R/474/98].
12. Petitioner will appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dhubri on or before
11.05.2022.
13. Interim order passed earlier by this Court on 27.08.2018 will continue till a fresh
Page No.# 5/5
opinion is rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal as regards the citizenship status of the
petitioner.
14. With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
15. Let the LCR be sent forthwith to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
