SAHERA KHATUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel for the petitioner. None to represent respondent no.1. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 4, Ms. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent no.5 and Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent no.6. Opinion dated 19.6.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners' Tribunal No. 6 Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 218/2015 is assailed in this writ petition. Against a reference of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta to decide the citizenship of the petitioner, the F.T.Case No. 218/2015 was initiated. On receipt of the notice the petitioner filed her written statement claiming herself to be citizen of India by birth. It is her contention that she was born and brought up at village Marabhaj, Mouza & P.S. Baghbar,District Barpeta. Her projected grand father's name is Abdul Bayati @ Abdul Bayaz and her father's name is Babur Ali Sheikh @ Babur and mother's name is Bimala Khatun and Bidyajan Khatun is her step mother. The grandfather, father and step mother expired. The name of the grandfather alongwith her father's name are enrolled in the voter list of the year 1966 and 1970 of village Pub Balikuri Non K(District Barpeta) under 52 No. Baghbar LAC. In the electoral roll of 1997, the names of her parents, step mother and brothers are recorded of village Marabhaj under 45 No. Baghbar LAC. The petitioner is married with one Amir Ali @ Amir, son of Anoo Miah of village Shawkhowajar Non K and after her marriage she was living in the said village permanently.

(2.) The petitioner adduced her evidence as DW 1 and the Government Gaonbura of village Marabhaj adduced his evidence as DW 2. In addition to that she exhibited following documents:

(3.) The Tribunal considering the evidence on record opined against the petitioner by holding her to be a foreigner who entered Assam on or after 25.3.1971. Mr. Matin learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the land documents more specifically the land revenue paying receipt in order to establish the link of the petitioner with her projected father whose name alongwith her grandfather are recorded in the voter lists of 1966 and 1970. The said submission is vehemently objected by Mr. Payeng on the ground that mere production of land revenue receipt cannot establish the link of the petitioner with that of the father. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. From the Exts A and B i.e. the certified copy of the voter lists of the year 1966 and 1970, we find consistency in respect of the projection of the father and the grandfather of the petitioner to be the person whose names are included prior to 25.3.1971. It indicates that said father and the grandfather entered India prior to 1971. From the year 1970 the name of the projected father of the Page No.# 4/5 petitioner is found to be recorded in the voter list of 1997. The said voter list of 1997 shows the name of the projected mother Bimala Khatun as one of the voter whose name is enrolled alongwith projected father Babur Ali . However the name of the petitioner is absent from the said voter list of the year, 1997.