[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 7 February, 2026
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010011332017
2026:GAU-AS:1747-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/491/2017
MUSSTT ANISHA KHATOON @ MS. ANISHA KHATUN@ ANISA
KHATUN@AANICHA KHATUN@ANISA KHATUN@ ANISHA KHATU
D/O. MD AJGAR ALI @ AZGAR ALI, W/O. MD MAINUL HAQUE @ MAINAL
HAQUE, R/O. VILL. POILA, P.O. BARDIGHELI, MOUZA- KHATA, P.S. and
DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM. PERMANENT R/O. VILL. CHENGLIMARI/
PAKALAGI, P.O. CHENGLIMARI, P.S. SALBARI THE THEN BARPETA ROAD,
DIST. BAKSA BTAD THE THEN BARPETA.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS.
REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ADMN.
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7.
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B
NALBARI
P.O. and DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN. 781335.
Page No.# 2/8
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
P.O. and P.S. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN. 781335
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S HUSSAIN, MR.A A MONDAL,MR.B ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : , GA, ASSAM,ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
Date : 07.02.2026
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr. A.K.
Dutta, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel
for respondent nos. 2 to 4; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent no.5.
2) In this writ petition, the petitioner has projected that she is
known by several names, viz., Musstt. Anisha Khatoon @ Miss. Anisha Khatun @
Miss. Anisa Khatun @ Aanicha Khatun @ Anisa Khatun @ Mrs. Anisha Khatun.
By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 30.11.2016, passed by the learned
Page No.# 3/8
Member, Foreigners Tribunal-1, Nalbari, in F.T.(Nal) Case No. 36/07 (arising out
of S.P. Ref. No. 60/06), thereby declaring her to be a foreigner who is found to
be in India without valid document after 25.03.1971.
3) In her written statement, the petitioner has stated that her
grandfather was Late Jamal Uddin, son of Late Kalim Uddin, permanent resident
of village- Sengalimari, under Mouza- Bijni and that his name appeared in the
voter's list of 1965 of village- Sengalimari, under 48 No. Bhabanipur LAC. In the
voter's list of 1970 the name of her grandfather and grandmother, Chayaran
Nessa appeared as voter from village- Sengalimari, under 48 No. Bhabanipur
LAC. The names of her parents are Md. Azgar Ali and Azufa Khatun. In the
voter's list of 1997, her father's name appeared as Azgar, son of Jamal and
Azufa Khatun, wife of Azgar as voter of village- Sengali, under 41 No.
Bhabanipur LAC. Her father had obtained his Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC
for short), issued on 01.10.2013. She got married to Md. Mainul Haque, son of
Saleman and Tarabhanu of village- Pakalagi, under Mouza- Bijni, in the District
of Barpeta. The petitioner had obtained her EPIC, showing Mainul Haque. The
petitioner has a certificate issued by 115 No. Dhuman Pathar Gaon Panchayat
and a residential certificate issued by the Lot Gaonburah of village- Batiamari
and Chenglimari. She is presently residing at village- Poila, PS & Dist. Nalbari. It
was stated that there was no enquiry and the allegation and case was false. The
petitioner had also filed her additional written statement, wherein it was stated
that the police had not made any enquiry and the Border Police never visited
her house and that the case was falsely forwarded to the learned Tribunal for its
opinion.
4) In support of her defence, the petitioner had examined herself
as DW-1. In her evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had reiterated the
Page No.# 4/8
statements made in her written statement and additional written statement. The
petitioner had exhibited the following documents:-
a. Certified copy of voters list of 1965, containing the name of Jamal Uddin,
son of Kalimuddin, of village- Changelimari under 48 No. Bhabanipur LAC (Ext.1).
b. Certified copy of voters list of 1970, containing the names of Jamal Uddin,
son of Kalimuddin and Chayaran Nessa, wife of Jamal, of village- Changelimari,
under 48 No. Bhabanipur LAC (Ext.2).
c. Certified copy of voters list of 1997 containing the names of Ajgar, son of
Jamal and Azufa Khatun, wife of Azgar as voter of village- Sengali, under 41 No.
Bhabanipur LAC (Ext.3).
d. EPIC in the name of name of Ajgar Ali, son of Jamal Uddin (Ext.4).
e. EPIC in the name of Aanicha Khatun (Ext.5).
f. Certificate dated 21.06.2015, issued by the Secretary, 115 No.
Dhumarpathar Gaon Panchayat Ext.6).
g. Certificate dated 22.07.2016, issued by the Gaon Burah, Batiamari and
Chengelimari Revenue Village (Ext.7).
5) During her cross-examination, the petitioner had stated that
she had forgotten the name of her grandmother and that she had not exhibited
any document of her father after 1997.
6) The learned Tribunal, upon appreciating the pleadings and
evidence, held that Jamal Uddin, son of Kalim Uddin, whose name appears in
the voter list of 1965 (Ext.1) and 1970 (Ext.2), was a citizen of India in 1965
and 1970. As per Ext.3 and Ext.4, Azgar Ali is found to be the son of
Jamaluddin. The petitioner had submitted only two documents to claim her link
with her projected parents, being the two certificates issued respectively by the
Secretary of Gaon Panchayat and the Gaon Burah, which cannot be accepted as
a linkage as the said documents were not proved by the concerned authority.
Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner has not been able to prove her
citizenship from the relevant period and she was held to be a foreigner who is
found in India after 25.03.1971.
Page No.# 5/8
7) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the
petitioner has annexed several other documents which would establish that she
is a citizen of India. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not receive
correct legal advice for which she did not examine the authors of Ext.6 and
Ext.7, which were documents to link the petitioner with her parents. Accordingly,
it has been submitted that as citizenship is a valuable right, the matter may be
remanded back to the learned Tribunal so as to give the petitioner one more
opportunity to prove her existing and additional documents that have been
annexed to this writ petition.
8) Per contra, it has been submitted by the learned standing
counsel for the FT and Border matters that the nature of prayer that has been
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be allowed by this Court
while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, as this is neither an appellate nor a
revisional jurisdiction. In support of his submissions to oppose the challenge,
reliance has been placed on the following cases, viz., (i) Khudeja Khatun v.
Union of India, 2018 (3) GLT 347, (ii) Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India & Ors.,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1160.
9) Having heard both sides, the records received from the learned
Tribunal have been examined. It is seen that the petitioner had examined only
herself as DW-1 and no other witnesses were examined. Moreover, no prayer
was made for examining other witnesses or to exhibit any other documents.
10) In this writ petition, the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-15,
a copy of opinion dated 21.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners
Tribunal-1, Nalbari, in F.T. (Nal) Case No. (N) 43/07, arising out of S.P. Ref. No.
12/06 - State of Assam v. Md. Mainul Haque, son of Md. Soleman Ali . Though
no submission has been made on the same, but as per the statement made in
Page No.# 6/8
paragraph 18 of the writ petition, the same pertains to her husband. Therefore,
the same is not relevant for consideration for the petitioner.
11) In this case, the petitioner has not exhibited any document
which connects her projected grandfather, whose name appears in the voter list
of 1965 (Ext.1) and 1970 (Ext.2) with the projected father of the petitioner,
whose name appears in the voter list of 1997 (Ext.3) and EPIC (Ext.4).
Moreover, the petitioner has not proved any document to connect her with her
projected father. As mentioned hereinbefore, the only link document of the
petitioner is the certificate by the Secretary of Gaon Panchayat (Ext.6) and the
School certificate (Ext.7), which were not proved by their respective author. In
the case of Khudeja Begum (supra), this Court has held that non-examination of
the author of a Panchayat Certificate is fatal. The petitioner had projected that
she left her school in the year 1997 and had passed the Annual Examination for
promotion to Class-IV. However, the certificate was obtained in the year
01.12.2016 and moreover, in her cross-examination, the petitioner had stated
that her projected father had procured the same. Moreover, the issuing
authority was not examined as witness. Thus, neither the said Ext.6 and Ext.7
was proved in accordance with law, nor the contents of the documents were
proved. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rofiqul Hoque (supra), has
held that the late issuance of certificate must be explained.
12) The High Court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, can only
examine as to whether the learned Tribunal has decided the matter in
accordance with law and well settled legal principles. As the petitioner did not
make any prayer to examine any further document or witness, this Court has no
material to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner had suffered any prejudice
during the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, following the ratio
Page No.# 7/8
of the case of Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. V. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC
733: (2023) 0 Supreme(SC) 763, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is
not open to this Court to substitute its view for the well considered opinion
passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the oral prayer made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to remand the matter is without any merit and
therefore, rejected.
13) Thus, the Court does not find any fault with the finding recorded
by the learned Tribunal that there are no documents to link the petitioner with
her parents and grandparents.
14) Moreover, except for Ext.1 and Ext.2, all other exhibited
documents are post 25.03.1971, which is the cut-off date.
15) Therefore, in light of discussions above, this Court does not find
that the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by any
jurisdictional error or that there was any failure of giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner. Therefore, as the Court is exercising supervisory jurisdiction
and not appellate jurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting the opinion
rendered by the learned Tribunal with the view of the Court. This is not a case
where the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidence or where
its finding is dehors the evidence on record.
16) Hence, this writ petition to assail the opinion dated 30.11.2016,
passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-1, Nalbari, in F.T.(Nal) Case
No. 36/07 (arising out of S.P. Ref. No. 60/06) fails and the writ petition is
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. The consequences of the
said opinion shall follow.
17) The Registry shall return back the Tribunal's records along with a
Page No.# 8/8
copy of this order so as to enable the learned Tribunal to make it a part of the
records for future reference.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
