HAZERA KHATOON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Ms. B. Das, the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.5, Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Counsel together with instructing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 and Ms. U. Das, learned standing counsel for respondent No.6.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon in F.T. Case No.103/2011, by which it was held that the petitioner was a foreigner who had entered India illegally from the specified territory of Bangladesh post 25.03.1971.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the written statement filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was born and brought up in VillageKowoimari under Rupahihat P.S., under Rangagarah Mouza in the district of Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner had projected that the names of her grandfather and father were enrolled in Voter list of 1965 and 1971 and since 1971 her father has been casting vote till his death. The petitioner has projected Sukur Mahmud @ Sukur Ali as her father and Abdul Hashim @ Hashim as her grand-father. The petitioner claimed that her grand-father and father possessed landed property at Kowoimari Kissam under Rangagarah Mouza in the district of Nagaon, Assam. It is submitted that the name of petitioner was enrolled in the voters list of 1989 and ever since she has been casting her vote till 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was tagged as a 'doubtful' voter. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner is an Indian citizen. After her marriage with Ramjan Ali of Village- Sokitup, under Samaguri P.S., Nagaon, she has been living with her husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had exhibited 6 documents as Ext.A to Ext.F. However, the learned Tribunal had referred only to three exhibits by referring them as Ext.1 to Ext.3 and there was no discussion on the remaining Ext.D to Ext.F, which included the sale deeds of land which was held by her grand-father and father since the year 1948. Hence, it is submitted that as the learned Tribunal had not considered the evidence on record and that the exhibited documents were discarded without assigning good reasons, for which the impugned opinion stands vitiated. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned opinion be set aside and the petitioner be declared as an Indian citizen.