Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 5 June, 2025
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana, Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010169762020
2025:GAU-AS:7553-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5189/2020
AZIM UDDIN AHMED
S/O- LT. SARBAT ALI @ SARAB ALI @ SARBAT ALI AHMED, VILL- MANDIA
GAON, P.O. MANDIA, P.S. BAGHBOR, DIST.- BARPETA, PIN- 781308
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF HOME, NEW
DELHI-1
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF HOME
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
PIN- 781301
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
BARPETA
PIN- 781301
5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION
GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-1
6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC)
ASSAM
GHY-32
Page No.# 2/9
7:THE FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL NO. 4TH
BARPETA
REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL OF THE TRIBUNAL
PIN- 78130
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. T BEGUM,MS. M R DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
JUDGMENT
Date : 05.06.2025
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
B. Sarma, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT
matters; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the NRC; Mr. M. Islam,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for
the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the
State respondent.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 15.02.2020,
passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal No.-4 th, Barpeta in F.T. Case
No. 1048/16, arising out of Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 3397/B/98, by which the
petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant, who had entered into Assam on or
after 25.03.1971.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions to
challenge the impugned opinion on the ground that the evidence of the
Page No.# 3/9
petitioner was rejected merely because of discrepancy in the names of the
father and grandfather of the petitioner, as well as in the ages of the family
members of the petitioner whose names appear in the voter list exhibited before
the learned Tribunal and also on the ground that the certified copy of the
registered sale deed has also not considered.
4. However, per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT mater
has made his submission in support of the impugned opinion.
5. As the records of the Tribunal, which was called for has been received,
the Court has examined the records and also considered the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel
for the FT matters.
6. The records reveal that on receipt of notice of the proceeding, the
petitioner had entered appearance before the learned Tribunal and submitted
his written statement, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was born and
brought up at village- Mandia Gaon in the district of Barpeta. The names of his
grandparents are Monsur and Kadban Nessa. The names of his parents is Sarbat
Ali @ Sarab Ali @ Sarab Ali Ahmed and Anowara Begum. It is projected that his
brothers are Nazim Uddin Ahmed and Sofi Uddin Ahmed and his sister is
Jahanara Begum and he has referred to the names which finds entry in the
voter list of 1966, 1970, 1989, 1997 and 2010. It is also claimed that the
grandfather of the petitioner expired before the year 1966 and that initially the
name of the projected father of the petitioner appeared in the voter list of 1966
and 1970 at village- Bhera and after 1970, the parental family of the petitioner
shifted form village- Bhera to village- Mandia Gaon. It is further projected that
Sarbat Ali @ Sarab Ali @ Sarab Ali Ahmed @ Sarab are the name of the father
Page No.# 4/9
of the petitioner, therefore, the said 4 (four) names are of his father and all are
same and one person. Accordingly, it is claimed that the petitioner is a citizen of
India and therefore, proceeding against him be dismissed.
7. By filing his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated the
statements made in the written statement and in support of his defence, the
petitioner has exhibited to following documents, viz. (i) Certified copy of
Electoral Roll of 1966 (Ext.A); (ii) Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1970 (Ext.B);
(iii) Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1989 (Ext.C); (iv) Certified copy of
Electoral Roll of 1997 (Ext.D); (v) Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 2010 (Ext.E);
(vi) SEBA Admit Card (Ext.F); (vii) School Certificate (Ext.G); (viii) SEBA mark-
sheet (Ext.H); (ix) Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1966 (Ext.I); and (x)
Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1970 (Ext.J). By referring to Ext.A, it was
stated in the evidence-on-affidavit that contains names of his father, Sarbat Ali
and grandmother, Kadban Nessa; Ext.B, contains the name of his father Sarbat
Ali; Ext.C, contains the name of his father, Sarab Ali; mother, Anowara Begum
and elder sister Jahanara Begum and he has stated that after 1970 his parental
family shifted residence from village- Bhera to village- Mandia Gaon; Ext.D,
contains the name of his father, Sarab Ali Ahmed, mother, Anowara Begum and
brother Nazim Uddin Ahmed; Ext.E, contains the name of mother, Anowara
Begum, brothers, Nazim Uddin Ahmed and Sofi Uddin Ahmed and elder sister
Jahanara Begum. He has also stated that his father has expired. The contents of
the remaining Ext. Nos. F to J are not relevant and therefore, not referred to in
this order. The petitioner has also stated that his father's actual age in the year
1970, 1989 and 1997 was 34, 53 and 61 respectively, according to the voter list
of 1966, but in the said voter list, the age of his father is written as 35, 55 and
55 respectively. Similarly, it was stated that his mother's actual age in 1997 and
Page No.# 5/9
2010 was 48 and 61 respectively, according to the voter list of 1989, but in the
said voter list it was written as 46 and 59 years respectively and in this regard,
petitioner had exhibited an affidavit (Ext.J). However, during his cross
examination, the petitioner has stated that they are four brothers, one Nazim
Uddin Ahmed, himself, Saif Uddin Ahmed, Safi Uddin Ahmed.
8. The petitioner has also examined his projected mother, Anowara
Begum as DW-2, who has stated in paragraph-11 of her evidence-on-affidavit
that she has 4 (four) sons, namely, Nazim Uddin Ahmed, Azim Uddin Ahmed,
Saiful Islam, and Sofi Uddin Ahmed. She also has 2 (two) daughters, namely,
Jahanara Begum, and Saleha Begum. In paragraph-12 of her evidence-on-
affidavit, DW-2 has stated that her husband had 3 (three) brothers, namely,
Meghu Mia, Kitab Ali, and Asan Ali and 2 (two) sisters and she has also stated
that she has land documents in respect of land at village- Mandia Gaon.
9. From the records of the Tribunal it is seen that although DW-2, in her
evidence-on-affidavit has not referred to her Elector Photo Identity Card or
certified copy of sale deed bearing deed no.7156/71 dated 15.12.71, there is no
corresponding statement in her evidence-on-affidavit or in her oral examination
by the learned Tribunal. Nonetheless, the said two documents are found to be
marked as Ext.K and Ext.L in the record.
10. The petitioner has also examined one Nazimuddin Ahmed, the
projected brother of the petitioner as DW-3, who has stated that he was born
and brought up at village- Mandia Gaon and the petitioner was also born and
brought up at the same village. It is reiterated that the name of his grandfather
was Monsur and the name of his grandmother was Kadban Nessa and the father
name is Sarbat Ali @ Sarab Ali @ Sarab Ali Ahmed and his mother's name is
Page No.# 6/9
Anowara Begum. The name of the elder sister is Jahanara Begum. He has
exhibited documents, which was already exhibited by the petitioner as Ext.A to
Ext.G respectively. DW-3 has also reiterated that he has 3 (three) uncles,
namely, Meghu Mia, Kitab Ali, and Asan Ali. It may also be stated that in course
of oral examination, DW-3 had exhibited his passport (Ext.M); Identity Card of
DW-3 (Ext.N); HSLC Admit Card of DW-3 (Ext.O); Electoral Voter Identity Card
(Ext.P). However, there is no corresponding statement in the evidence-on-
affidavit of DW-3 or in his oral examination by the learned Tribunal as regards
Ext.M to Ext.P.
11. One Nipul Das, who was working as Head Gaonbura of Mandia Gaon
and Mandia Pathar was examined ad DW-4. In course of his examination, the
DW-4 has stated that he had issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner,
which was issued on printed certificate pad of Shri Lohit Das, his father by
entering some contents on it. He also admitted that the contents were not
entered by him in the certificate. He also admitted that he had issued the
certificate without verification and mentioned that Sarab Ali and Sarbat Ali are
one and same person. the said certificate was exhibited as Ext.Q and his
signature is exhibited as Ext.Q(1) and he did not maintained the records of
persons who the certificate (Ext.-Q).
12. On appreciations of the pleadings in the written statement and
evidence of the four witnesses examined by the petitioner, the Court has
observed as follows:-
a. Neither in the written statement nor in the evidence-on-
affidavit by petitioner as DW-1, he has disclosed the names of family
members of the grandfather and father of the petitioner or his own
Page No.# 7/9
family. In the written statement as well as in the evidence-on-affidavit
by DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3, the petitioner and witnesses have merely
referred to names appearing in the voter's list and then they have
stated of their relationship with the persons whose name appear in the
exhibited voter's list i.e Ext.A to Ext.E.
b. In their respective evidence-on-affidavit, the DW-1, DW-2 and
DW-3 have taken similar stand. The DW-1 is the proceedee
(petitioner), (DW-2) is his projected mother and (DW-3) is the
petitioner's projected brother. They have stated that the name of the
petitioner's grandfather is Monsur, grandmother's Kadban Nessa and
the name of petitioner's father is Sarbat Ali @ Sarab Ali @ Sarab Ali
Ahmed, mother's name is Anowara Begum and name of elder sister is
Jahanara Begum. DW nos. 1, 2 and 3 have referred to the names
which appear in the voter list of 1966 (Ext.A); voter list of 1970
(Ext.B); voter list of 1989 (Ext.C); voter list of 1997 (Ext.D); voter list
of 2010 (Ext.E).
c. In contrast, in his cross-examination, the DW-1 (petitioner) has
stated that he has four brothers, namely, Nazim Uddin Ahmed, Azim
Uddin Ahmed, Saif Uddin Ahmed, and Sofi Uddin Ahmed. He has
admitted that he is not a recorded voter and his name is not enrolled
in any electoral roll.
d. In paragraph 11 of her evidence-on-affidavit, DW-2 has stated
that he has four sons, namely, Nazim Uddin Ahmed, Azim Uddin
Ahmed, Saiful Islam, and Sofi Uddin Ahmed and two daughters,
namely, Jahanara Begum and Saleha Begum. However, in her cross-
Page No.# 8/9
examination, she refers to only four sons and only one daughter
Jahanara Begum.
e. DW-3 has stated that he has three brothers, namely, Azim
Uddin Ahmed, Saiful Islam, and Sofi Uddin Ahmed and 2 (two) sisters,
namely, Jahanara Begum and Saleha Begum.
f. Accordingly, the description of the family of the father of the
petitioner, as stated by the petitioner does not match within description
of the family given by the DW-2 and DW-3 because the existence of
Saleha Begum, as sister of the petitioner, is not disclosed in the written
statement or evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner. Similarly,
while DW-1 in his cross-examination has disclosed the name of one of
his projected brother as Saif Uddin Ahmed, the DW-2, the projected
mother has disclosed the name of the same said son's name as Saiful
Islam
g. It may be mentioned that apart from the voter's list referred
above, the petitioner has exhibited the Elector Voter Identity Card
(Ext.F), HSLC Admit Card (Ext.G), and two Gaonburah Certificates
(Ext.H and Ext.I).
h. The petitioner has also exhibited an affidavit (Ext.J) with regard
to name and age of the petitioner's parents. However, the DW-2 has
not taken any plea in her evidence-on-affidavit with regard to
discrepancy, if any, on her age as recorded in the voter list of 1997 and
2010.
13. Thus, when the name of the petitioner has not been entered in any
Page No.# 9/9
electoral roll and there is no voter list of the entire family together or any other
documentary evidence to show the family together, merely by oral evidence of
DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 or by virtue of the HSLC Admit Card (Ext.F), School
Certificate (Ext.G) or HSLC Mark-sheet (Ext.H), it cannot be said that the
petitioner has been able to connect himself as the son of Sarbat Ali, son of
Monsur, whose name appears in the voter's list of 1966 and 1970 of vill-Bhera
or with Sarab Ali, son of Munser, Sarab Ali Ahmed son of Munser whose name
appear in the voter list 1977 and 1980 respectively. Moreover, the HSLC Admit
Card and Mark-sheet (Ext.F and Ext.H) also do not establish the link of the
petitioner with his projected father as the said two documents do not affect the
address of the petitioner. Moreover, the Head Master of the school, who had
issued school certificate (Ext.G) was not examined to prove the said document
with the admission register. Whether as it may HSLC Mark-sheet or Admit Card,
in the absence of any other cogent and admissible document the accepted as
proof of parentage or sonship and on the strength of those two stand-alone
documents.
14. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned opinion fails. Resultantly, the
writ petition is dismissed.
15. The Registry shall send back the records of the Tribunal along with the
copy of the order to be made a part of the record.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
