Page No.# 1/ vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 19 February, 2026

Author: K.R. Surana

Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana

                                                                  Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010014092019




                                                             2026:GAU-AS:2677

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

                       Case No. : Review.Pet./93/2019

         MISS KULSUM BEGUM @ KULSUM BIBI
         D/O- ABDUL JALIL, W/O- NAZARUL ISLAM, R/O- VILL.- BANGALPARA, P.S.
         HAJO, DIST.- KAMRUP(R), ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
         AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001.

         2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
          REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          HOME DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
          KAMRUP(R)
          P.O. AMINGAON
          GUWAHATI-32
          DIST.- KAMRUP(R)
         ASSAM.

         4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          KAMRUP (R)
         AMINGAON
          GUWAHATI-32.

         5:THE DISTRICT ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER
          KAMRUP(R)
         ASSAM.
                                                                       Page No.# 2/10

            6:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
             NEW DELHI- 110001.

            7:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC

             BHANGAGARH
             GUWAHATI-5
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR K DAS, MR. B PHUKAN,MR. B K DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI




             Linked Case : WP(C)/4151/2016

            MISS KULSUM BEGUM @ KUSUM BIBI
            D/O. ABDUL JALIL
            W/O. NAJRUL ISLAM
            VILL. BANGALPARA
            P.S. HAJO
            DIST. KAMRUP R
            ASSAM.


             VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE SECY. 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
             GHY.-06.

             3:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE B

            KAMRUP RURAL
            P.O. AMINGAON
                                                                       Page No.# 3/10

           DIST. KAMRUP R
           ASSAM
           GHY.-32.

           4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER

          KAMRUP R
          AMINGAON
          GHY.-32.
          ------------

Advocate for : MR.M H TALUKDAR Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

JUDGMENT & ORDER ORAL Date : 19.02.2026 (K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT matter and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate.

2. This review petition in respect of the order dated 15.11.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C) 4151/2016, by which the writ petition was Page No.# 4/10

dismissed without interference with the opinion dated 17.06.2016, passed by learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 4, Kamrup at Hajo in H.F.T. Case No. 352/2015 (New), arising out of IM(D)T Enquiry No.1608/2003, whereby the petitioner was declared to a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3. This review was preferred on the ground that in his cross- examination of the DW-3 that the father of the petitioner was engaged as a labour in his house for about 5 (five) years. It is stated that in the said ground, complex arithmetical calculation of the age of several persons in relation of the petitioner has been calculated and it is projected that the said calculations were overlooked while deciding the writ petition. In respect of Ext. E, F and D, which are stated to have been overlooked and unconsidered by this Court as a second ground of this review, it is projected that during cross-examination of DW-4, who was the father of the petitioner, stated that DW-4 would produce a sale deed before the learned Tribunal. The same remains shrouded in mystery.

4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the cross-examination of DW-4, i.e. the father of the proceedee, it was noted that DW-4 would produce his sale deed before the learned Tribunal but it remained shrouded in mystery. Further, the learned Tribunal, upon the deposition of the proceedee had rightly determined the year of shift by her grandparents during the year 1976. Accordingly, Taleb Ali shifted from Bangalpara to Nizkaurbaha during the year 1976, then the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 have the justification that Taleb Ali and his family were at Bangalpara and shifted in the year 1976 too is justified for, Abdul Jalil's family tree (pedigree) has been clarified by Ext.D i.e., his voter list of 1997.

Page No.# 5/10

5. It is also submitted that DW-4, i.e. the father of the proceedee (herein the applicant) could not produce his sale-deed before the learned Tribunal by the next date when judgment was delivered. The petitioner shall produce the same at the time of hearing of this petition and if necessary an order be passed for sending back the record for considering the case of the petitioner afresh, wherein among others, the applicant's name along with her father, i.e. DW-4 are mutated and the DW-4's father's name i.e. Taleb Ali's name is recorded to justify the lineage when further, one sale deed of Taleb Ali after his shift from Bangalpara to Nizkaurbaha in the year 1976 as evidence marking their stay as inhabitants of the referred place be proved though the period from 1976 to 1997 remained unbridged to have their linkage with "Family tree" proved to be genuine and be considered by this Hon'ble Court.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been able to lay her hands on the certified copy of Jamabandi of Goreswar Revenue Circle under Kaurbha, Mouza of vill-Nizraurbaha covered by Patta No. 345. It is submitted that the said document would link the petitioner with her projected father. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner be given an opportunity after remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal. In support of his submissions that a review would be maintainable and additional documents have been produced, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Mohnot, (2014), 14 SCC 77. Moreover, by referring to the entries made in the voters list of 1997 (Ext.D) it is submitted that in the said voters list Abdul Jalil and the name of the father are shown as Taleb. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner has been able to prove the link Page No.# 6/10

between the petitioner and her projected father.

7. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has submitted that elaborate argument has been advanced by referring to the grounds of review, it is submitted that an extensive argument has been advanced to show by complex arithmetic, the age of various persons whose name appears in the voters list of 1997 (Ext.D), voters list 1966 (Ext.E) and voters list of 1970 (Ext.F). Accordingly, if there is an inherent error in the appreciation of a document it would be an erroneous finding and would be available to be corrected in an appeal and a review would not be maintainable. Moreover, it is submitted that the new document, i.e., the jamabandi of the land could not be said to be a new document which came to the notice of the petitioner which could not be found despite due diligence. Accordingly, by referring to the case of Kamalesh Varma Vs. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, it is submitted that a review would not be maintainable.

8. We have considered the materials available on record with due consideration to the grounds of review which are extracted hereinbefore. In order to explain the error apparent on the face of record, the petitioner has shown complex arithmetical calculation to find fault with the finding of this Court. In this regard, it may be stated that this Court while passing the order dated 15.11.2018, passed in WP(C) 4161/2016, had considered each and every exhibited document, referred to the age reflected in the various documents to arrive at a finding that the plea of the petitioner regarding migration from Bangalpara to Nizkaurbaha cannot be accepted by holding that the oral evidence regarding the migration of the grandfather and his family from Bangalpara to vill-Nizkarubaha 40 years back cannot be held to be Page No.# 7/10

proved on the face of contradictions of the DW-2 and DW-3. This Court had held that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that oral evidence remains un-rebutted cannot be accepted in as much as when there are contradictions in some of the witnesses produced by the petitioner and their versions are recorded are in the same part of the evidence of the petitioner put on record in order to discharge the onus probandi consistent with the facts in issue.

9. In the considered opinion of the Court if by way of elaborate arithmetical calculation, an analysis has to be made by the Court in review jurisdiction, it would not be a case of review but it would be a case of fresh appreciation of the evidence and then this would be a case where the error apparent on the face of the record cannot be found out by a merely by looking at the documents or the order of this Court. Accordingly, the case of Sunrendra Mohnat (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not come to the aid of the petitioner. Paragraph no. 20 of the case of Surendar Mohnat (supra) and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

Having stated so, we shall presently proceed to address whether the Writ Court was justified in rejecting the application for review. The order of rejection only notices that the order was passed on agreement and therefore, it could not be the subject-matter of review. The learned Single Judge, as it appears, did not think it appropriate to appreciate the stand of the State and passed an absolutely laconic order.

10. From the said part of the order on which reliance is placed it does not appear that when by elaborate arithmetical calculation the mistake is to be found out, it can be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Rather, it would be a case when that the decision was not erroneous on merits.

Page No.# 8/10

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on a copy of the jamabandi relating to Patta No. 345 of vill-Nizkaurbaha, under Kaurbaha mouza. Though the documents annexed as Annexure-J is not a true and correct English translation of the jamabandi, but on perusal of the vernacular document, it is seen that on Md. Jalil Ali acquired title in respect of a plot of land by way of sale and transfer in respect of Dag No. 508. However, against the said entry in the remark column number "ta", the same contains reference to purchase of land in connection with Dag No. 608. Therefore, there appears to be a difference between the dag number of the land, which in column no. 4 is mentioned as 508, but in the remark column, it is mentioned as 608. The land of the petitioner was transferred by way of gift deed and the corrections made in the land revenue records were made on 14.02.2011. The correction made on the date of correction of the order could not be read. Therefore, from whatever would be read, it is seen that as per the said entry it appears that the petitioner received the said land by way of gift for which land record corrections were made in 2011. Then, it is not possible that someone getting land by way of gift in 2011 would forget the existence of the gift deed in connection of the petitioner towards her father in 2015 when the proceedings before the learned Foreigners Tribunal had commenced.

12. The written statement of the petitioner was filed before the learned Foreigners Tribunal on 29.12.2015, which does not contain the reference to the gift deed of the land revenue records and the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner on 29.12.2015 also does not refer to the said document. Therefore, this is not a case where a document came to light subsequently after the proceedings before the learned Foreigners Tribunal and after the Page No.# 9/10

proceedings in the writ petition were concluded. It appears that land revenue records are now being sought to be introduced only to fill up the lacuna as the neither before the learned Foreigners Tribunal nor before this Court, link between the projected grandfather of the petitioner and the projected father of the petitioner could not be shown. Moreover, there is also no document to link the petitioner with her projected father. The learned counsel for the petitioner had made strenuous effort to show from the voters list of 1997 that it contains the name of the projected father of the petitioner and the projected grandfather. However, the same cannot be accepted as the said voters list does not contain the name of the grandfather to establish linkage between the petitioner and her father and the linkage between the father of the petitioner and the grandfather.

13. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamlesh Varma Vs. Mayawati (supra) no grounds were made out.

14. Accordingly, the review petition fails and the same is dismissed.

15. The consequences of the opinion dated 17.06.2016, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 4, Kamrup at Hajo in H.F.T. Case No. 352/2015 (New) arising out IM(D)T Enquiry No. 1608/2003, by the which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner.

16. Though it has not come to the notice of the Court that there is any interim order passed in this review petition nonetheless it is provided that there is any interim order passed in this review petition, the same would stand vacated forthwith.

17. The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border shall Page No.# 10/10

communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Political (B), Department so as to transmit the same to the jurisdictional Tribunal.

                                        JUDGE                JUDGE


PRATIK Digitally signed
       by PRATIK GUPTA

GUPTA 16:07:44 +05'30'
       Date: 2026.02.23


Comparing Assistant