Abdus Chattar @ Sattar Ali vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors.

Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010135432019

2026:GAU-AS:6320
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4308/2019
ABDUS CHATTAR @ SATTAR ALI
D/O- LT MAHEJ ALI, VILL- NO.6 JAMDOHA, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST-
BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783392
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-1
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
4:THE ASSAM CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC
BHANGAGARH
ASSAM
GHY-5
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 783392
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
DIST- BONGAIGAON

Page No.# 2/15
ASSAM
PIN- 783392
7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
MANIKPUR P.S.
DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 783392
8:DEWAN ABDUR RAHIM
ADVOCATE
BONGAIGAON BAR ASSOCIATION
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM
PIN- 78339
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr.H.R. Ahmed

Advocate for the respondent(s):Mr.G.Sarma,
SC Home Department
Mr.P. Sarma, GA, Assam,
Mr.N.Kalita,
Mr A.I. Ali, SC, ECI
Date on which judgment was reserved : 28.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the :
operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?

Page No.# 3/15

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
(Shamima Jahan, J.)
Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Mr. P. Sarma,
learned Government Advocate, Assam, and Mr N Kalita, learned counsel
representing Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI.
2. By this application filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the opinion dated
31.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1,
Bongaigaon, Assam, in FT Case No. BNGN/FT/521/07, corresponding to IM(D)T
Case No. 164 of 2005, whereby the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post-
25.03.1971 stream.
FACTS
3. The petitioner had stated that he was born and brought up at Village-
Shoilbari (Mulbari), PS-North Salmara, in the district of Goalpara, Assam, and
that he is the son of Late Mahej Ali and Jarina Bewa, and that he is permanently
residing at Village No. 6, Jamdoha, P.S.-Manikpur, in the district of Bongaigaon
along with his family members.
4. The petitioner further stated that in the voters’ list of 1970, his parents’
names were recorded as Mahej Ali, son of Taher Ali and Jarina Khatun at Serial
No. 43 and 44, respectively, at Village-350 Malbari Balarchar, under Abhayapuri
(SC) LA 42. He further stated that his father’s name was recorded in Final

Page No.# 4/15
Khatian Form No. VII, as Mahej Ali under Khatian No. 57, Village-Malbari, in the
district of Goalpara. He, thereafter, stated that in the voters’ list of 1985, his
name was recorded as a voter along with his mother, under 34 Abhayapuri
North LAC. He also relied on the Jamabandi, wherein it was shown that he was
one of the owner of a plot of land under Dag No. 155, Patta No. 09, and in the
said Jamabandi, his name was shown as Chattar Ali, son of Mahej Ali. The
petitioner also relied upon the family Ration Card, issued by the Inspector of
Food and Civil Supplies, Bongaigaon, wherein his name was recorded along with
other family members. Thereafter, he relied on the certificate issued by the
Secretary of Bhandara Gaon Panchayat, where he was shown to be the son of
Mohej Uddin of Village-Jamdoha in the district of Bongaigaon. He also stated
that there are some spelling mistakes in the name of his grandfather, father and
mother, and that there were also some anomalies with regard to the age, but
the same may be ignored and they may be considered as one and the same
person. However, he stated that the Superintendent of Police (B), Bongaigaon,
doubted his citizenship and on the basis of the report of the ERO, the SP(B)
referred the case to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, which was subsequently
registered and a notice was issued by the Foreigners’ Tribunal to the petitioner.
5. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted his written statement on
rd
3 of May, 2016, stating, inter alia, that his father’s name was Mahaz Ali @
Mahej Ali @ Mayej Ali, and that his father’s name appeared in the NRC 1951,
vide Serial No. 2, House No. 4, at Village-Malbari, in the district of Goalpara. He
further stated in the written statement that his father’s name appeared in the
voters’ list of 1970. He then stated that his name appeared in the voters’ list of
1985 and that he was an absolute owner and possessor of a plot of land under
Bijni Revenue Circle and that he also obtained a Ration Card.

Page No.# 5/15
6. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his evidence-on- affidavit, wherein, he
made similar statements as that in the written statement and further stated that
his actual and correct name is Sattar Ali and that in some documents, his name
was wrongly reflected as Abduz Chattar, and that Sattar Ali and Abduz Chattar is
one and the same person. He also stated that the same is in respect of his
father, whose name was wrongly spelt in few documents. This petitioner was
thereafter cross-examined and during his cross-examination, he stated that he
does not remember his date of birth as well as his birth place and the names of
his grandparents. He, thereafter stated that his father had two brothers, but he
did not know about the sisters of his father, and that he has four brothers and
one sister. He also stated that he married Lal Bhanu Nessa in the year 1985 and
has four sons and one daughter out of the wedlock. He also stated that he did
not know as to which LAC his parents voted and that in 1995 voters’ list, he
could not say whose names were inserted in the same. He also stated that he
did not know the Schedule of land, Class of land, Dag number and Patta number
mentioned in the Jamabandi, which he had placed before the Court.
7. The petitioner stated that in the written statement as well as in his
evidence, he has exhibited many documents, which are mentioned as follows:-
i) Exhibit-A: photocopy of NRC 1951.
ii) Exhibit-B: voters’ list 1970.
iii) Exhibit-C: voters’ list of 1985.
iv) Exhibit-D: Jamabandi copy.
v) Exhibit-E: Ration card.

Page No.# 6/15

vi) Exhibit-F: Tax Receipt.
vii) Exhibit-G: Notice for Application for Electoral Roll.
viii) Exhibit-H: Enumeration receipt for electoral roll.

ix) Exhibit-I: Panchayat certificate.
These are the pleadings set out by the petitioner to establish his
citizenship.
The learned Foreigners’ Tribunal considered the case of the petitioner
along with the said documents and vide its opinion dated 31.10.2018, rejected
the case of the petitioner by declaring him as a foreigner of post-25.03.1971
stream, mainly on the following grounds:-
i) Since the petitioner could not give his date of birth or year of
birth and could not place the next of kin certificate as well as any
PRC certificate, the petitioner’s case could not be considered.
ii) Exhibit-B being a translated copy of the Electoral Roll and on the
proceedee’s inability to state as to which LAC his parents voted, in
his cross-examination, the said exhibit was rejected.
iii) On similar ground, Exhibit-C was also rejected.
iv) Although the petitioner placed the Final Khatian being in the
name of his grandfather, but in the cross-examination he stated he
did not know the schedule or the identification of the land.
v) On the same ground, the copy of the Jamabandi was also not

Page No.# 7/15
accepted.
On these grounds, the Tribunal gave its opinion as aforesaid.

SUBMISSIONS:
8. Mr M U Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the
voters’ list of 1970, the names of the father and mother were enlisted as voters,
and in the final khatian, the father of the petitioner was shown as the owner of
a plot of land. He further submitted that in the 1985 voters’ list, the name of the
petitioner appeared along with his mother and in the said voters’ list, he is
shown as the son of Mahej Uddin along with other brothers. He further
submitted that in the copy of the Jamabandi, it is reflected that the petitioner,
son of Mahej Ali, inherited a plot of land and further that the petitioner had a
Ration Card in his favour. He also submitted that the Secretary of Bhandara
Gaon Panchayat had given a certificate that the petitioner, son of Mahej Uddin,
is personally known to him. The main ground of challenge raised by the learned
counsel is that the cross-examination of the petitioner was done by the Court,
which is impermissible in law, and to substantiate his argument, he had shown
in the opinion of the learned Tribunal that no advocate for the State was present
during the hearing. He had also argued that it was the fault of the lawyers of
the petitioner who had not called relevant witnesses, i.e., the mother as well as
the Secretary of the Panchayat. He relied on Section 50 of the Evidence Act,
wherein it is provided that any member of the family can depose facts which are
in their special knowledge and that the said facts would become relevant. Mainly
on these two grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for
remanding the matter back to the Tribunal.

Page No.# 8/15
9. On the other hand, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
FT matters, submitted that the voters’ list of 1970, which was relied on by the
petitioner is a translated copy of the electoral roll and the same is not
admissible in evidence. She further submitted that the names of the projected
father of the petitioner are differently spelled in five documents, placed by the
petitioner, and that the name of the mother had also changed in different
voters’ lists. She also submitted that by reading the original Jamabandi, it could
be discerned that Sattar Ali had purchased a plot of land at a much later stage
and that it is not inherited by him at a very later stage, and as such, the said
document cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. She also stated that in the
written statement, the petitioner had not mentioned about his mother or his
other siblings, and as such, he states that the petitioner. has failed to establish
his link with his mother or father. To substantiate her argument, she has placed
reliance on a Judgment delivered on 10.04.2018, in Isiran Nessa –Vs- Union
of India , by this Court in WP(C) No. 2460 of 2016 , wherein it was held that
translated copies of voters’ list cannot be construed as certified copies. It was
also held that too many material contradictions render the case of the petitioner
improbable and also that without examining the authors of the certificate, the
same cannot be relied upon.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10. It is a settled position of law that NRC certificates are not admissible piece
of evidence. Further, it is seen that in the 1970 voters’ list which is exhibited as
Exhibit-B, the name of the projected father is shown as Mahej Ali and mother’s
name was shown as Jarina Khatun from House No. 11 and they were stated to
have voted for Abhayapuri (SC) LA 42. Thereafter, in the year 1985, the

Page No.# 9/15
petitioner’s name is shown to have appeared in the voters’ list of that year,
along with his projected mother from House No. 54, for the Abhayapuri North
LAC. It is seen in the said list that the name of the mother was changed from
Jarina Khatun to Jobina Bewa. Further, it has not been stated anywhere by the
petitioner as to the fact relating to the death of his father. It is also seen that in
the said voters’ list of 1985, the petitioner is shown to be the son of Mahej
Uddin, whereas in the voters’ list of 1970, the name of his projected father was
Mahej Ali. Accordingly, it is seen that petitioner could not place any voters’ list
along with his father, and that he had made an attempt by placing a voters’ list
wherein his name was shown as A. Sattar with his projected mother whose
name was different. Similarly, the name of his projected father was also
different in both the voters’ lists. Furthermore, in the Final Khatian which is
relied on by the petitioner and which was exhibited as Exhibit-D, the name of
the holder was shown as Mahej Ali Sk, which again does not come to the rescue
of the petitioner as it cannot have the potentiality to establish the link of the
petitioner with his projected father.
11. Further, petitioner had tried to establish the link by submitting the
Jamabandi, wherein , an attempt was made to show that the land held by Late
Mahej Ali devolved on him, but the original copy of the said Jamabandi was not
legible and on a further careful reading, the learned Standing Counsel could
make out that the land was purchased by the petitioner to which the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not clarify the same in his favour. As such, the
said contents of the Jamabandi could not be relied upon by the Court.
Furthermore, in the Ration Card, relied upon by the petitioner, his father’s name
was written as Mahesh Ali, which again does not corroborate with other
documents. Although the petitioner had stated in his evidence that the name of

Page No.# 10/15
his father was wrongly spelled in a number of documents, and the same may be
considered as one and the same person, however, the said contention would not
suffice in absence of any other materials on record. It will also not be out of
context to mention herein that the Ration Card cannot establish the linkage of
the petitioner with his father. The petitioner had further relied on the Certificate
issued by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, wherein the petitioner was
shown as the son of Mahej Uddin, but in absence of the author of the said
certificate being examined as defence witness, the said Certificate has no value
according to the law laid down. As such, it is seen that discrepancy in the
names, place of voting as well as age is not in one place, but in number of
places in the instant case.
12. Further it is not required to go into the contention of the petitioner that
the then lawyer of the petitioner did not call witnesses to depose. The other
ground that the Court having cross-examined the petitioner in place of State
Counsel, is amenable to get the case remanded to the Tribunal, this Court gives
the following findings-
(i) A bare perusal of the opinion rendered by the Foreigners’ Tribunal
reflects that for the State there was no Advocate, as can be discerned from the
Cause Title of the said opinion. On scrutinizing the records, it is seen that the
petitioner has submitted his written statement on 03.05.2016, and had
submitted documents to establish his citizenship as mentioned above.
(ii) Thereafter, on 07.10.2016, the petitioner had submitted his
evidence-on-affidavit. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 07.11.2016, had
held that the petitioner had filed his affidavit of evidence and thereby fixed the
matter on 18.01.2017 for hearing on the case as well as for cross-examination.

Page No.# 11/15
However, on the said day, i.e., on 18.01.2017, as well as in the subsequent
days, the matter was adjourned for one reason or the other and that finally, on
31.10.2018, it is stipulated in the order that the petitioner was present in person
and was examined as OPW No. 1.
(iii) It was further stipulated in the said order that the petitioner had
refused to adduce any more evidence. The learned Tribunal, thereafter, heard
the learned counsel for the opposite party and decided to pass the opinion then
and there itself, but due to strike of the staff, the learned Tribunal deferred its
decision and that later in the day, the Tribunal passed its opinion, which is
impugned in the instant case.
(iv) Although the learned Tribunal had stated in its opinion that OPW No.
1 was examined, but on noticing the examination of the OPW No. 1, which was
recorded on 31.10.2018, makes it abundantly clear that the statement given by
the petitioner was in the nature of cross-examination. The very first line in the
deposition of the petitioner reflected the following statement-“I shall state truth
and only truth- OSA XXX”, which shows the same was in the nature of cross-
examination without any iota of doubt. It was not written by the learned
Tribunal that the said statement was given pursuant to his examination under
Section 165 of Evidence Act.
(v) In the order passed by the learned Tribunal, it was simply written
that OPW No. 1 was examined. Furthermore, on a previous occasion, as stated
above, the learned Tribunal had fixed the case for cross-examination after the
petitioner had filed his evidence-on-affidavit. Furthermore, the perusal of the
deposition recorded on 31.10.2018 also makes it clear that it was in the form of
cross-examination. As such, it is noticed that the State counsel was not present

Page No.# 12/15
and that it was the Court who had cross-examined the petitioner.
(vi) This Court, in Sakina Khatun -Vs- Union of India; reported in
2025 (5) GLT 1059, had held that cross-examination conducted by the Court
is not a proper procedure and on the said ground, the case was remanded to
the learned Tribunal for re-hearing. The relevant part of the said Judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ 15. Turning our attention to another aspect of the proceedings conducted by
the learned. Tribunal, we are pained to see that the Cross-examination of all the DWs
were conducted "through Court". We have gone through the order sheets of the
relevant dates viz. 10.4.2017 (1stcross of DW-1) 29.8.2017, (2nd cross of DW-1),
16.11.2017 (cross of DW-2) and 24.1.2018 (cross of DW-3). The presence of the Govt.
Pleader/Assistant Government Pleader is not disclosed in the said orders. The
impugned order dated 26.3.2017 does not record the presence of the Govt.
Pleader/Assistant Government Pleader. In very similar circumstances, a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, by order dated 05.3.2025 in WP(C) 6587/2024, held that the only
plausible view would be that the learned. Tribunal had embarked on the cross-
examination of the DWs and that such practice was held impermissible for a quasi
judicial authority.
16. Having given our anxious attention to the proceedings conducted by the
learned Tribunal, we are left with no option but to hold that the proceedings in FT
Case No. 340/2016 suffers from procedural illegalities and the manner in which the
proceedings were conducted do not inspire the confidence of the Court that the
proceedee had faced a fair and impartial adjudication by the learned. Tribunal. In such
view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the order
dated 13.6.2017, which had allowed amendments to the WS and the affidavit filed as
evidence in chief of DW-1 and also by setting aside the opinion rendered by the
learned. Tribunal on 26.3.2018 (wrongly typed in the order as 26-3-2017). The matter
is remanded back to the learned. Tribunal to render a fresh opinion in accordance with

Page No.# 13/15
law and by taking into account the relevant pleadings and exhibits already available on
record but by ignoring the amended written statement and amended evidence- on-
affidavit filed by the DW-1. The cross examination of the DWs which was already
conducted, having been found to be faulty, opportunity of cross examination shall be
granted to the State, if so prayed for. ”
(vii) In yet another decision, this Court in Md Sahjahan Ali -Vs- Union
of India and Others, being WP(C) No. 4496 of 2018, delivered a Judgment,
stating, inter alia, that the Court examining the witness orally in absence of
Government pleader, is a wrong procedure and the matter requires remanding it
back to the Tribunal. The relevant findings are reproduced below:-
“ 15. Upon perusal of the record, we take note of the fact that the proceeding
was taken up by the learned Tribunal on 9 (nine) dates between 01.12.2018 and
21.05.2018. However, the presence of A.G.P. is not recorded in any of the daily orders.
The examination-in-chief of the three DWs were recorded by the learned Tribunal and
thereafter, instead of cross-examination of the said DW nos. 1, 2 and 3 by the State,
the said witnesses were orally examined by the learned Tribunal. The evidence of the
DW nos. 1, 2 and 3, could not be shaken during examination by the learned Tribunal.
16. Thus, it appears that the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 2nd,
Nagaon, acted both as a prosecutor and the Judge in the same proceeding. This
violates the principles of natural justice.
17. Accordingly, the Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned opinion
dated 25.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 2nd , Nagaon
in F.T. Case No. 820/2011, bearing S.P. Ref. IMDT Case No. 393/2002 against the
petitioner, Sahjahan Ali. Resultantly, the matter is remanded back to the said learned
Tribunal for a fresh decision.

It is further seen in the said Judgment noted above that this Court had
given a direction to the State Government in the Home Department to ponder

Page No.# 14/15
upon the said question and to take up appropriate remedial measures. The
Court had further requested the learned Standing Counsel for the Home
Department to send the copy of the said order to the concerned authority who
is in charge of Foreigners’ Tribunal matters.
(viii) Therefore, it is noticed in the instant case that the petitioner being
examined by the Court, which is clear that the same was in the nature of cross-
examination, was not the proper procedure, rather the same was illegal, and as
such, the case be remanded to the learned Tribunal.
13. In such view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of by setting
aside the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal on 31.10.2018. The matter is
remanded back to the learned Tribunal to render a fresh opinion, in accordance
with law and by taking into account, the relevant pleadings and exhibits already
available on record. The cross-examination of the petitioner, which was already
conducted is incorrect and the opportunity of cross-examination should be given
to the State.
14. The Registry shall return back the records to the learned Tribunal
immediately along with a copy of this order.
15. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Tribunal with the certified
copy of this order on or before 29.05.2026, without requirement of any further
notice.
16. Further, it is expected that the learned Tribunal will expeditiously render
its opinion on the basis of the materials available on record, preferably within a
period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the records or date of
appearance of the proceedee, whichever is earlier.

Page No.# 15/15
17. Since the matter has been remanded back, the observations on merit
mentioned above should not influence the learned Tribunal.
18. The petitioner is also directed to appear before the Superintendent of
Police (Border), Bongaigaon, within 20 days from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this order, and furnish a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the said authority.
19. Further the Superintendent of Police (Border), Bongaigaon, is directed
that on appearance of the petitioner within the period indicated above, the
biometrics of iris of both eyes, the finger prints of both hands and the
photographs of petitioner shall be obtained, whereafter, he shall be allowed to
remain on bail.
20. On failure of the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent of Police
(Border), Bongaigaon, and before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal within the
time allowed, the bail order would be revoked by efflux of time, without any
further order of the Court. Thereupon, it would be open to the Superintendent
of Police (Border), Bongaigaon, to secure the presence of the petitioner before
the learned Tribunal for rendering fresh opinion in the presence of the petitioner.
21. The writ petition is allowed to the extent, as indicated above.
22. No order as to cost(s).
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant