JUBEDA KHATOON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners' Tribunal and Border Areas, Ms. A Verma, learned standing counsel for the authorities under the NRC as well as Ms. G Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India.

(2.) The petitioner was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal II at Lakhimpur for an opinion as to whether he is a foreigner and accordingly LFT II Case No.1162/2015 was registered. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner relied upon the voters list of 1966 pertaining to village Tenga Basti Block 112, Mouza Kadam, Sub-Division: North Lakhimpur, PS North Lakhimpur wherein Sl. No.287 is in respect of Abur Ali Fakir, son of Momin and Sl. No.291 is in respect of Amena Bibi wife of Akub. The petitioner also relied upon the voters list of 1970 also of village Tenga Basti, Block No.125 of Mouza Kadam, North Lakhimpur Sub-Division and North Lakhimpur Police Station, wherein Sl. No.234 is in respect of Abur Ali Fakir, son of Momin and Sl.No.238 is in respect of Amena Bibi, wife of Akur. Amongst others, the petitioner also relied upon the depositions of Amena Bibi, wife of Late Abur Ali Fakir as DW-2 wherein it is deposed that the petitioner is her daughter and Abur Ali Fakir is her husband and father of the petitioner. It is also stated that another name of Abur Ali Fakir is Ayub Ali and in the voters identity card, her husband's name is shown as Ayub Ali.

(3.) The petitioner seeks to draw her linkage with Abur Ali Fakir through the evidence of Amena Bibi. The petitioner also relied upon the evidence of Ruhini Seleng who is the Gaonburah of the concerned village who was examined as DW-2. The Tribunal in its order dated 26.04.2018 had taken note of the evidence of DW-2 wherein it is stated that the witness does not know anything about the marriage of the petitioner and that he cannot say anything about her other siblings. Further he stated that when the petitioner had approached him for a residence certificate, he had issued the Ext.5 certificate, but the petitioner is actually not a resident of the concerned village.