Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 1 June, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010233272019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7294/2019
DURLAV ROY @ DURLAV CH. ROY AND 6 ORS.
S/O. LT. UDAY ROY, VILL. BARAMARIPAM, P.S. MAYONG, DIST.
MORIGAON, ASSAM.
2: NANIBALA ROY
W/O. SRI DURLAV ROY @ DURLAV CH. ROY
VILL. BARAMARIPAM
P.S. MAYONG
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
3: PRAHLAD ROY
S/O. SRI DURLAV ROY @ DURLAV CH. ROY
VILL. BARAMARIPAM
P.S. MAYONG
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
4: PRASHADI ROY
D/O. SRI DURLAV ROY @ DURLAV CH. ROY
VILL. BARAMARIPAM
P.S. MAYONG
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
5: NIBAS ROY
S/O. SRI DURLAV ROY @ DURLAV CH. ROY
VILL. BARAMARIPAM
P.S. MAYONG
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
6: KALPANA ROY
Page No.# 2/5
D/O. SRI DURLAV ROY @ DURLAV CH. ROY
VILL. BARAMARIPAM
P.S. MAYONG
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
7: GOPAL ROY @ SAGAR ROY
S/O. SRI DURLAV ROY @ DURLAV CH. ROY
VILL. BARAMARIPAM
P.S. MAYONG
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI-01.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B)
MORIGAON
P.O. AND DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
P.O. AND DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-01.
6:THE ASSAM STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-05
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR
Page No.# 3/5
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 01.06.2023
(AM Bujor Barua, J)
Heard Mr. N Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L
Devi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 6 being the authorities
under the Union of India and NRC respectively, Mr. G Sarma, learned counsel for
the respondents no. 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Home Department
of Government of Assam, Ms. U Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4
being the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon and Mr. T Pegu, learned counsel for
the respondent no. 5 being the authorities under the Election Commission of
India.
2. The petitioner no. 1 Durlav Roy@ Durlav Ch. Roy had been referred to the
Foreigner's Tribunal No. 4, Morigaon for rendering an opinion as to whether he
is a person who entered the State of Assam from the specified territory on or
after 25.03.1971, resulting in registration of F.T. (C) Case No. 276/2016. The
Tribunal rendered an opinion dated 30.01.2019 declaring the petitioner to be a
foreigner.
3. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted.
4. In the writ proceeding the petitioner relies upon the voters' list of 1956 of
village Baramari Non-K Mouza Mayong PS Morigaon in the present Morigaon
Page No.# 4/5
district which contains the name of Uday Chandra Roy, S/O Adhar at Sl. No. 28
and that of Surbala, W/O Uday at Sl. No. 30 where both of them are shown to
be residing in the same house no. 15 and it is claimed that Uday Chandra Roy is
the father of the petitioner no. 1. To substantiate that Uday Chandra Roy is the
father, reliance is placed on a jamabandi in respect of a plot of land at village
Baramari Pam wherein as per the order of the Circle Officer dated 17.02.1995
land had been mutated in place of the pattadars in favour, amongst others,
Durlav.
5. From the information regarding the pattadars contained in the same
jamabandi it is noticed that the name of Sri Uday Chandra Roy, S/O Adhar had
been struck off and in his place, replaced by amongst others, Durlav S/O Uday.
If the information contained in the voters' list of 1956 of village Baramari Non-K
and the jamabandi of a plot of land at village Baramari Pam are correct and
acceptable, the petitioner no. 1 may have discharged the burden under Section
9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946 that he is a citizen.
6. In view of the above, the matter stands remanded back to the Tribunal to
examine the voters' list of 1956 of village Baramari Non-K as well as the
jambandi of a plot of land at village Baramari Pam. The respondents in the
Home Department may also make their own enquiry and verification as to
whether the petitioner proceedee Durlav Roy @ Durlav Ch. Roy and Durlav of
the order of the Circle Officer dated 17.02.1995 are one and the same person.
7. In respect of the petitioners no. 2 to 7 the provisions of law laid down in
the judgment of Sudhir Roy v. Union of India reported in 2019 (1) GLT 353 will
follow and accordingly, the opinion dated 30.01.2019 passed in F.T. (C) Case No.
276/2016 are set aside and the authorities are at liberty to proceed against
them as per law.
Page No.# 5/5
8. The petitioner no. 1 to appear before the Tribunal on 07.07.2023.
9. If the reasoned order is in favour of the petitioner no. 1, the same shall
prevail over the opinion dated 30.01.2019 passed in F.T. (C) Case No. 276/2016
and if against, consequence under the law is applicable to the petitioner no. 1.
10. Till the reasoned order is passed, no coercive action be taken against the
petitioners.
Send back the LCR.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
