[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Review.Pet./68/2021 on 26 March, 2026
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana, Soumitra Saikia
GAHC010082402021 2026:GAU-AS:4325-DB
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
REVIEW PETITION NO. 68/2021
Fatema Bidhaba -56 years
D/O Late Abdul Kader Ali,
W/O- Late Abdul Rejjak,
Village-Haldia Gaon, P.O- Mazgaon,
P.S.-Sorbhog, Dist-Barpeta, Assam
PIN-781313
........Review Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India
represented by the Ministry of
Home Affairs, New Delhi, PIN
110001
2. The State of Assam,
represented by the Government
of Assam, Home Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-781006
3. The Deputy Commissioner of
Barpeta District, Barpeta,
Assam, PIN-781301
4. The Election Commission of
India, New Delhi-110001
5. The State Co-ordinator,
National Register of Citizens,
Assam, Guwahati-781005
Page 1 of 22
6. The Superintendent of
Police(B), Barpeta, Assam
7. The Officer-in-Charge,
Sorbhog Police Station, District-
Barpeta, PIN-781317
........Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. D.J. Das, CGC
Mr. N. Kalita, SC, ECI
Mr. G Sharma, SC, FT
Mr. P Sarmah, Addl. Senior
Government Advocate
Dates of hearing : 26.02.2026
Date of Judgment & Order : 26.03.2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[Soumitra Saikia, J.]
This review petition is directed against the order
dated 10.11.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 1906 of 2020. By
the said order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
challenging the opinion dated 29.11.2019 passed in FT.
Case No. (Bpt/11th) 1910/2017 rendered by the Member,
Foreigners' Tribunal No. 11, Barpeta, declaring the
petitioner to be a foreigner/illegal migrant who had entered
Assam on or after 25.03.1971, was affirmed and the writ
petition was dismissed.
2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contested the
reference by filing written statements and supporting
documents. The case projected before the Tribunal was
that she was born in 1966 at Village Pota under Sarupeta
Revenue Circle of Barpeta district. Her parents' names
were Abdul Kader Ali and Moyful Nessa and her
grandmother's name was Hazera Bewa. She had produced
copies of the electoral Rolls for the years 1965, 1970,
1989, wherein the names of her parents and grandmother
names are found recorded as voter. She was married on
01.10.1983 to Abdul Rajjak of village Haldia Gaon, P.S.
Kalgachia District Barpeta, Assam and for the first time, her
name was recorded as a voter in the year 1985 along with
her husband in respect of village Haldia under 44 No. Jania
LAC. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined two
witnesses--herself as DW-1 and one Abul Kalam Ahmed as
D.W-2, who was projected as her brother.
3. On these documents and evidences adduced, the
petitioner contested her case and urged before the
Tribunal that the reference against her was uncalled for,
and that she being a citizen of India, the same should be
answered in her favour.
4. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner produced the
extracts of electoral Rolls for the year 1965 and 1970,
whereby names of Abdul Kader Ali, son of Kader Ali, and
Mayful Nessa, wife of Abdul Kader Ali, and Hazera Bibi,
wife of Sagar Ali, who were projected as the father, mother
and grandfather respectively were recorded as voters and
were shown to be residents of village Pota under No 48
Bhawanipur LAC. They were exhibited before the Tribunal
as Exhibit 1 and 2. Thereafter, electoral Rolls for the year
1985, 1997 and 2017 were exhibited as Exhibits 3, 4 and
5.
5. Exhibit 3, which is the electoral Roll of 1985 recorded
the name of Fatima Khatun and her husband Abdul Rajjak
as voters whereas Exhibit 4 pertaining to Electoral Roll of
1997 recorded the name of petitioner as a voter and
Exhibit 5 pertaining to the electoral Roll of 2017 recorded
the name of the review petitioner and her two sons,
Farman Ali and Saman Ali, and Rahina Khatun, wife of
Saman Ali.
6. Exhibit 6 was the extract of the electoral Roll of 2018
in respect of Village Pota under No. 41 Bhawanipur LAC
pertaining to one Abdul Kalam Ahmed, son of Abdul Kader
(62) and his wife Nur Nehar Ahmed (52) whom the
petitioner projected as her brother and sister-in-law.
7. Exhibit 7 is the certificate issued by the Secretary 108
No. Majgaon Gaon Panchayat vide dated 12.10.2015
countersigned by the BDO, Howly certifying that Srimati
Fatema Bidhaba aged about 52 years old, daughter of late
Abdul Kader and Mayful Nessa of Pota village & 108 No.
Majgaon Gaon Panchayat under Sarupeta Revenue Circle
of Barpeta District of Assam was a resident within the
jurisdiction of the said Gaon Panchayat and who got
married on 01.01.1983 to late Abdur Rajjak, who was the
son of late Juran Fakir and late Sukuran Nessa, who were
residents of the village Haldia & the Haldia Gaon Panchayat
at Kalgachia Revenue Circle, Barpeta and by virtue of her
marriage, this certificate was issued based on the evidence
placed before the issuing authority. The said certificate,
however, was not accepted by the Foreigners' Tribunal as
the said certificate was not proved by examining the author
or even the BDO who had countersigned in the said
certificate.
8. Exhibit 8 is a certificate of the Jamabandi in respect
of plots of land covered by Dag Nos. 280, 281 and 296
covered by PP No. 64 situated in village Pota under
Sarupeta Revenue Circle and was issued under the seal
and signature of the Circle Officer, Sarupeta Revenue
Circle, Sarupeta and pertained to 18 patta holders including
the OP, her several siblings including Abdul Kalam, who
was examined in DW-2.
9. On these evidences, the Foreigners' Tribunal opined
as under:
"SUMMARY
1. As per terms of the Reference OP is the W/O Lt. Rezzak which
is an admitted fact.
2. From record, it appears that the OP did not furnish her father's
name and several other information at the time of local verification
sufficient to raise reasonable doubt in a reasonable mind as to her
interntion.
3. Later, the OP came up and had contested the Reference
projecting one Abdul Kader Ali S/O Kader Ali of Exts. 1 & 2 as his
father.
4. OP also has projected another person, by name, Abdul Kader
S/O Sager Ali (Tajyu) of Ext-8 as her father from whom she and
her several siblings including the DW-2 have purportedly inherited
landed property.
5. Notwithstanding anything stated in the OP's WS, I am not
convinced that Abdul Kader Ali S/O Kader Ali of Ext-1 and 2 and
Abdul Kader S/O Sagar Ali (Tajyu) of Ext-8 are one and the same
person. On the premises, I have rejected the Exts. 1, 2 and 8 are
not reliable.
6. Ext-7 having been rejected after due appreciation as discussed
in the foregoing segment, no document remains in record as OP's
Ext. which links her to her projected father of Exts. 1 & 2 and
another projected father of Ext-8.
7. The earliest recorded presence of the OP alongwith her
husband and in-laws in Assam was in 1985 vide Ext-3 which is a
post 25th March 1971 period document and is therefore not
relevant wrt the issue before me.
8. Remaining Exts are also post 25th March 1971 period documents
and hence rejected as not relevant.
9. As not supported with relevant documentary evidence the
evidence of the OP/DW-1 and of her brother, Abdul Kalam Ahmed
DW-2 also stand rejected.
OPINION
In my opinion OP has failed to discharge the burden of proving
that she is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners'
Act, 1946 as mandated u/s 9 of the Act,
Reference is answered in affirmative."
10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court
by filing W.P(C) No. 1906 of 2020 assailing the said order.
The petitioner urged before the Court the evidences which
were placed before the foreigners' tribunals and submitted
that these were not correctly appreciated by the Tribunal
and therefore it requires interference. On the materials
placed before the Court and upon careful perusal of the
Tribunal's records which were called for, the writ Court
declined to interfere with the opinion of the Tribunal and
accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner,
thereafter, preferred an Special Leave to Appeal(C) being
SLA(C) No. 1906/2021. The Apex Court granted
permission to the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the
SLP with liberty to file a review petition before the High
Court and accordingly, the SLP was dismissed as
withdrawn with the liberty granted and a further liberty to
approach the apex Court again challenging the main order
as well as the order that may have been passed in the
review petition. Under such circumstances, the petitioner
has preferred a review petition.
11. Before this Court, the petitioner urged the following
grounds:
"(i) For the Hon'ble Court has not considered her PAN Card issued
by the Income Tax Department, Panchayat Certificate, which was
counter signed by the B.D.O which is her linkage with her father,
due to not proving the same by the author of the certificate.
(ii) For that the petitioner has Prima Facie good case on merit, as
she has all the documents to prove her nationality including the
copy of voter lists of 1966 and 1970 in the name of her father and
also in the voter lists of 1993, 2005, 2011, 2016 and 2019 in her
name with her husband which are annexed with the writ petition.
(iii) For that the petitioner's own name and her own brothers' and
sisters' names have been recorded in the Draft NRC of 2018 and
many other documents in her own name. She has also annexed a
linkage certificate in this review petition, issued by the Secretary of
Arimari Gaon Panchayat, counter signed by the B.D.O of that area,
dated 14-08-2015, Recently, in a reference case, this Hon'ble Court
has remanded back to the Tribunal to prove the petitioner's
nationality by adducing any further evidences to show the petitioner
is the daughter of Abdul Jalil, vide judgment and order (ORAL),
dated 20-02-19 in WP(C) no.5158/2018.
(iv) For that the Hon'ble High Court in the full Bench Decision, as
reported in 2013 1 GLT 809, paras90, 91 & 92, it has been
categorically observed that the Tribunal has the power to review the
order, if appropriate ground exists. Moreover, in a large number of
judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the courts
have ample powers to review its orders even on subsequent
developments.
(v) For that this Hon'ble High Court being a court of record, has
inherent power to review its own order more particularly when there
are crucial developments. In the present case the names of the
petitioner's own brothers and sisters have been recorded in the
updated NRC in Assam after through verification by the NRC
authorities. So, this matter is a cogent and positive ground in favour
of the petitioner that she is also a citizen of India, not a foreigner.
Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also given the petitioner
liberty to file review petition seeking appropriate order in this regard
by order, dated 18-03-21, passed in SLP No. 2906/2021.
(vi) For that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus's case,
vide Civil Appeal No. 5012/2019, it is clearly stated in para 23 that
any order passed in case of close family members, subsequent to
adjudication order determining the citizenship status of a person,
would necessarily be a material evidence which can be duly taken
note of and considered while deciding a Writ Petition or a Review
application.
(vii) For that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus's case,
vide Civil Appeal No. 5012/2019, it is clearly stated in para 17 that
in some cases, persons who have been declared to be a foreigner
under the foreigner's Act have been included in the Draft National
Register to citizens for the state of Assam, while in others siblings
and close blood relations of such persons have been named in the
draft NRC. It is also averred that an aggrieved person should be
entitled to take recourse to para 8 of the schedule to the 2003
rules.
(viii) For that the other grounds may be submitted at the time of
hearing."
12. Pursuant to notice issued in the review petition, the
Tribunal's records were again called for and have been
examined by this Court. Although the petitioner's primary
ground urged was that there are NRC particulars reflecting
the names of the siblings of the petitioner and therefore
when her siblings are considered to be Indian citizens,
there is no question of the petitioner being treated to be
an illegal immigrant.
13. The learned counsel for the review petitioner further
submits that the Jamabandi is a certified copy obtained
from the custodian of the land records, namely the Office
of the Circle Officer and the name of the petitioner along
with her siblings is reflected in the said Jamabandi. At the
time when the documents were presented before the
Tribunal, there was no objection raised by the government
pleader. Therefore, there is no scope for the Tribunal not
to accept the Jamabandi submitted by the petitioner and
the same ought to have been accepted and the petitioner's
claim that she is an Indian citizen ought to have been
accepted and thereby the reference should have been
answered in favor of petitioner holding her to be an Indian
citizen.
14. The learned counsel for the review petitioner
submits that in Abdul Kuddus's case vide Civil Appeal No.
5012/2019, the Apex Court held that where any order is
passed in case of close family members subsequent to
adjudication order determining the citizenship status of a
person that would necessarily be material evidence which
can be duly taken note of and considered while deciding a
writ petition or a review application. It is, therefore,
submitted that since the siblings of the review petitioner
and close blood relations have been named in the draft
NRC, the order of the writ Court is required to be reviewed
and recalled and the matter should be remanded back to
the Tribunal for a fresh decision in the matter. In support
of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
pressed into service the following judgments:
1. Food Corporation of India Vs. Assam State
Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd and
Ors, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 360;
2. M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and Anr,
reported in (2000) 1 SCC 666.
15. Per contra, Mr. G. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel,
FT appearing for the respondents disputes the contentions
raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that there is a clear
finding by the Tribunal with regard to the Jamabandi which
was exhibited as Exhibit No. 8 that although the review
petitioner contended that it includes her name and the
name of her siblings, including Abdul Kader, who is
projected as her brother and was examined as D.W-2.
However, on close scrutiny, it is seen that the names of
their father's are shown as Sagar Ali. Although it was
submitted orally before this Court that Kader Ali and Sagar
Ali are one and the same person, however, no such
averments were made in the written statement which was
filed before the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the
claim of the petitioner that the Exhibit 8, namely the
Jamabandi is a clear document in support of her linkage
with her relations and her brother cannot be accepted as
the name her projected father, Kader Ali, is not reflected in
the Jammabandi. Therefore, the same has been rightly not
accepted by Tribunal. He further submits that even
assuming though not admitting that names of the siblings
of the petitioner and other close blood relations are
included in the NRC, the same by itself will give no benefit
to the petitioner as the judgment of the Tribunal was
rendered on 29.11.2019 and the NRC was completed well
after 2019. He further submits that the copies or extracts
of the said NRCs on which the petitioner seeks to rely on
are also not before this Court. Therefore, without the
relevant documents, mere submissions of the review
petitioner ought not to be accepted. In support of these
contentions, the State counsel refers to and relies on the
following Judgments:
1. MuslemUddin Vs. Union of India reported in 2022
SCC OnLine Gau 1417; (2022) 5 GLT 144;
2. Rofiqul Hoque Vs. Union of India and ors, reported
in 2025 SCC Online SC 1160; and
3. Md. Siraj Ali @ Chiraj Ali and Ors Vs. The Union of
India, reported in 2024 Supreme (Gau) 1585
16. The learned State counsel therefore submits that this
is not a fit case for exercising review jurisdiction and the
review petition should be dismissed.
17. The counsel for the parties have been heard. The
materials available before the Court including the trial court
records have been carefully examined. The judgments
pressed into service have also been carefully taken note of.
18. At the outset, it must be pointed out that the primary
ground for filing the review of the petitioner is that the
names of the petitioner's siblings and other close blood
relatives are included in the NRC and therefore, if they are
considered to be Indian citizens, the petitioner could not
have been treated to be an illegal migrant. However,
copies of these NRCs on which the petitioner claims to rely
on have not been filed before the Court. Whether these
were documents were placed before the Apex Court is also
not known to the learned counsel for the petitioner
appearing before the Court nor are the copies of the
pleadings filed before the Apex Court are available with
him. As such from the order dated 18.03.2021, passed by
the Apex Court in SLA(C) No. 1906/2021, there was no
other direction save and except the liberty granted to the
review petitioner to withdraw the SLP and file a review
petition before the High Court. Whether the copies of the
NRCs were filed before the Apex Court is not reflected in
the order nor was any leave granted by the SLP to place
additional documents before the High Court as is seen from
the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Apex Court.
Under such circumstances, the submission of the counsel
for the review petitioner that in view of the names of the
siblings of the review petitioner and other close relatives
being included in the NRC, the petitioner could not have
been treated to be an illegal immigrant cannot be accepted
in the absence of any cogent material being placed before
the court nor will it persuade the court to recall the order
dated 10.11.2020 passed in W.P(C) No. 1906/2020 and/or
to remand the matter back to the tribunal to re-decide on
this issue. The fact that the names of the siblings and
other close relatives were recorded in the NRC was also
not placed before the writ Court while passing the order
dated 10.11.2020 in WP(C) No.1906/2020 nor is it a case
projected by the petitioners that although these documents
were placed before the writ Court, the same were not duly
considered by the writ Court and therefore the order is
required to be reviewed. The review filed on this ground is
a fresh ground and which was not urged before the
tribunal or the High Court in the earlier round and
therefore, for the court to be persuaded to accept the
submissions, cogent materials are required to be placed
before the court as has been discussed, have not been
placed by the petitioner in spite of granting opportunities.
19. In so far as the claim of the petitioner that the
Jamabandi being an official document or a document which
has been obtained from the custodian of the land records,
namely the office of the Circle Officer, the contents thereof
are required to be accepted and relied upon by the
Tribunal or by the High Court and that not having been
done, the opinion dated 29.11.2019 passed by the
Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta and the order 10.11.2020
passed by the writ Court is bad and therefore, the order
dated 10.11.2020 passed in W.P(C) No. 1906/2020 is
required to be reviewed and recalled and the matter be
heard afresh and be remanded back to the tribunal for a
fresh decision. Upon careful perusal of the Tribunal
records, it is seen that although the Jamabandi is a
document in respect of plots of land covered under Dag
Nos. 280, 281, 296, and PP number 64, situated in the
village Pota under Sarupeta Revenue Circle and which the
petitioner claims pertained to 18 Patta holders including
the review petitioner and her siblings including Abdul
Kalam, who was examined before the tribunal as D.W-2
and projected as the brother of the review petitioner, the
fact remains the names of these patta holders are mutated
as having inherited the land from one Abdur Kader, who is
shown to be son of Sagar Ali under orders of the Circle
Officer dated 06.05.2019. The projected father of the
petitioner in terms of the voters' electoral Rolls and the
averments made in the written statement is one Abdul
Kader Ali. This is also the name which is found in the
affidavit sworn by the petitioner before the writ Court as
also in the present review proceedings. Although an
attempt has been made to project that Kader Ali and Sagar
Ali to be one and the same person, no such statement was
made in the written statements filed before the Tribunal.
The written statements which are filed before the Tribunal
are an opportunity provided to the proceedee to project
their case before the Tribunal against the proceedings
initiated on the basis of the reference that he or she is
suspected to be an illegal immigrant who had entered
Assam from the neighboring areas on or after 25 th March
1971. Therefore, the written statements will have to be
considered the basis of the case projected by the petitioner
and any subsequent additions or changes sought to be
brought in by the petitioner to the case as projected in the
written statements will have to be brought on record by
the procedure prescribed. No such steps have been taken
by the petitioner.
20. It is also necessary to refer here that in the written
statement, the petitioner admits that the Jamabandi was
obtained after receipt of the notice of the reference issued
by the Foreigners Tribunal. However, the date of death of
their father was not disclosed either in the written
statement or in the evidence adduced by the proceedee or
by the D.W.-2 who is the projected brother of the
proceedee /writ petitioner. From the Jamabandi, it is seen
that the Circle Officer has passed an order dated
06.05.2019 in Mutation Case No. BAR/SARR/2018-
19/1014/FMUT. From the evidence in D.W-2, it is seen that
he deposed before the Tribunal that they are comprised of
11 siblings including four sisters. However, from the
Jamabandi only the name of the petitioner is seen whose
name is mutated in respect of the concerned plot of land.
There is no explanation as to why the other three sisters
were excluded from their share of the property through
inheritance as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, at best,
the entry in the Jamabandi is only an evidence to show
that there was a mutation created in favour of the
petitioner but it cannot be used as a document to prove
the linkage between the petitioner and her projected
father. It is also observed by this Court that there was no
averment made in the writ petition being W.P(C) No.
1906/2020 that there was any failure on the part of the
Tribunal to appreciate the Jamabandi correctly. Therefore,
this ground presently urged in the present review
proceedings cannot be treated to be an error apparent on
the face of the record since there was no averment before
the writ Court that there was any failure of the Tribunal to
appreciate the Jamabandi correctly.
21. A careful perusal of the averments made in the writ
petition also reveal that there is no statement to that effect
that Kader Ali and Sagar Ali, who are projected to be the
father of the petitioner are one and the same person. In
her deposition before the Tribunal also from the evidence
recorded, it is seen that her father's name was shown to
be Abdul Kader Ali. In her cross-examination there she has
stated that her grandfather's name is Sagar Ali. From the
evidence of the D.W- 2, Abdul Kalam Ahmed, who was
projected to be the brother of the review petitioner. It is
seen that he is shown to be the son of Abdul Kader Ali and
in his cross-examination, he has stated that Sagar Ali is his
grandfather. Under such circumstances, the claim made by
the petitioner that the Jamabandi document is a reliable
document in support of her contentions and that not
having been considered appropriately by the Tribunal or by
the writ Court, the order dated 10.11.2020 passed in
W.P(C) No. 1906/2020 was for review, cannot be accepted
and the same is therefore rejected.
22. In Food Corporation of India (Supra), which is relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of
his contention that office documents coming from the
proper custody and forming part of official record must be
accepted to be proved and their contents can be read in
evidence. This judgment has been pressed into service by
the petitioner in support of his contention that the extract
of the Jammabandi being a document coming from the
official record of the custodian of the records, namely the
Circle Officer, will have to be accepted and the contents
are to be accepted to be proved. This contention of the
petitioner has to be considered vis-à-vis the contents of the
Jamabandi. The Jamabandi reflects the names of 18 Patta
holders including the claim of the petitioner that her name
is also included by itself is an evidence, even assuming that
this is an evidence laid in her favour, it is seen that the
Jammabandi pertains to a period well after 25th March of
1971. From the proper perusal of the evidence available in
the Tribunal records as also documents which are placed
before the Court, there is no evidence to suggest that the
petitioner was available prior to 25 th of March 1971,
although she claims to have been born in the year 1966.
The petitioner has not been able to prove a linkage with
her projected parents and therefore, even if the contention
of the counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted that the
Jamabandi is a valid document and ought to have been
accepted as a valid piece of evidence, at the most, it can
be considered to be an evidence to show that she owned a
plot of land covered by Dag Nos 280, 281, 296 in terms of
order passed in the year 2019 by the Circle Officer. The
Tribunal proceedings were initiated in the year 2017. There
is no averment or materials placed before this Court or the
Tribunal regarding the date of death of her projected
father late Abdul Kader. Therefore, without any cogent
material it cannot be held that the petitioner had
succeeded in proving a linkage to her father late Abdul
Kader by solely placing reliance on the copy of the
Jamabandi. This piece of evidence even if accepted, does
not support her contention that she was born in the year
1966 and has been in the state ever since.
23. In M.M. Thomas (Supra), the Apex Court held that
the High Court is a court of record as envisaged under
Article 215 and has inherent powers to correct the records.
A court of record includes all such powers whose acts and
proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial
testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior
court which is itself competent to determine the scope of
its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a
duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in
accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is
noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed
by it, the High Court has not only the power but a duty to
correct it. The High Court's power in that regard is plenary.
There is no quarrel with the ratio in the judgment as have
been laid down by the Apex Court. The High Court is
indeed a superior court of record, and therefore it is duty-
bound to keep its records correctly and in view of any
errors coming to the notice of the High Court, the same
should be promptly attempted to be corrected.
24. However, in the case of the present proceedings,
considering the materials available before the court, this
court does not find any error in the order dated 10.11.2020
passed in W.P(C) No. 1906/2020 which according to the
court would require any correction. Therefore, this
judgment does not come to the aid of the writ petition in
the context of the facts and circumstances of the present
proceedings.
25. In Rofiqul Hoque (Supra), the Apex Court was
considering the question of inclusion of the name of the
petitioner on the order passed by the tribunal and which
was affirmed by the High Court declaring the appellant
before the Apex Court as a foreigner. In the case before
the Apex Court, the draft NRC was published in the year
2019 and the appellant had already been declared a
foreigner by the tribunal. One of the issues which the Apex
Court was considering, was whether on inclusion of the
name of the appellant in the draft NRC published by the
competent authority in the year 2018, the declaration
made by the tribunal as affirmed by the High Court would
be rendered invalid. The Apex Court upon consideration of
the entire matter before it, answered that question in
negative. The Apex Court, by referring to the judgment of
the Apex Court in Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India reported
in (2019) 6 SCC 604, held that in view of the decision of
the Apex Court in Abdul Kuddus (Supra) consequent to the
declaration by the tribunal that the appellant is a foreigner,
the name of the appellant could not have been included in
the draft NRC and secondly, even if it had been included it
would not annul the declaration made by the tribunal. The
Apex Court therefore held that the inclusion of the name of
the appellant in the draft NRC would have no bearing on
the order passed by the tribunal, affirmed by the High
Court, declaring the appellant a foreigner.
26. In Md. Siraj Ali (Supra), a Coordinate Bench held that
the burden of proof lies on the petitioners to establish their
citizenship emphasizing the limited scope. The Co-ordinate
Bench summarized the principles of the Apex Court
rendered in Kamlesh Verma vs Mayawati & Ors, reported in
(2013) 8 SCC 320 which are reproduced below:
"10. The Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra),
summarized the principles under which a review will be
maintainable and also when the same will not be maintainable.
Paragraph Nos. 20.1 and 20.2 of the said judgment may be
abstracted hereunder:-
"20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in
Chhajju Ram v. Neki 18 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 19 to
mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in
Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or
results in miscarriage of justice
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be
an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at
the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
27. In State of Assam and Ors. Vs Moslem Mondal and
Ors reported in (2013) 1 GLT 809 a full Bench of this Court
has laid down the manner and procedure of appreciation of
evidence in matters relating to citizenship and where
opinions are required to be rendered by Foreigners'
Tribunal. It is held by this Court that the burden of proof is
on the proceedee to project that the reference made
against him is incorrect. It has also been held by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P(C) No.
6443/2017 (Ahitan Nessa Vs. Union of India) that NRC
details cannot be used as a valid piece of evidence to
accept the citizenship of any proceedee. In Moslem Mondal
(supra), it is held that the petitioner will have to take every
step in order to prove the evidences he projects in support
of his case.
28. Coming to the facts of the present proceedings, it
must be held that the petitioner could not point out any
error apparent on the face of the record which calls for a
review of the order dated 10.11.2020 passed in the W.P(C)
No. 1906/2020. The parameters of exercise of review
jurisdiction are extremely limited. Time and again the Apex
Court has held that it must be resorted only when glaring
omission or a patent mistake has crept in.
29. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another -Vs- Sheikh
Habib, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, the parameters
under which review jurisdiction is to be exercised has been
very lucidly laid down by the Apex Court. The relevant
paragraph is extracted below:-
"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is
proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave
error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition,
through different Counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a
second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of
inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict
need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the
insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine
affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the Court which
decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a
huge backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for
Counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and
fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost.
The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the
conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say
that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent
phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as
passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now,
except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as
Counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special
leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a
virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal
feature of finality."
30. In view of the above discussions, the court does not
find any ground to exercise a review jurisdiction, review
petition, according to stands dismissed.
31. The interim orders, if any, stands vacated.
32. The Trial Court records are directed to be returned
back forthwith.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
