Jubed Ali vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors

Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010080072020

2026:GAU-AS:15849
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2344/2020
JUBED ALI
S/O- LATE IBRAHIM ALI, R/O- VILL- BAHALAMUKH, P.O- LOCHANABARI,
P.S- MAIRABARI, PIN- 782126, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM,
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
ASHOK ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110001
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
GOVT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
4:THE DGP
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007
5:THE STATE COORDINATOR
OFFICE OF THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC
ASSAM
1ST FLOOR
ACHYUT PLAZA
GS ROAD

Page No.# 2/16
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005
6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782104
7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 78210
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M HASSAN,
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,SC, F.T,SC, NRC

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
For the petitioner : Mr. K.M. Hasan, Advocate
For State respondents : Mr. M.R. Adhikari, CGC.
: Mr. A.I. Ali, ECI.
: Mr. G. Sarma, FT and Border.
: Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 24.06.2026.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.10.2026.
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : No.
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes.


JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)

Page No.# 3/16
(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. K.M. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned
standing counsel for respondent no.2; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel
for respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt.
Advocate for respondent no.6.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, namely, Jubed Ali, has assailed the opinion dated
nd
18.11.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 2 , Morigaon,
Assam, in Case No. F.T. (D) 464/2010 [arising out of Police Ref. D/N Case No.
2413/98 dated 29.06.1998; E.R.O. Ref. No. 83/93/2 dated 20.10.1997], thereby
declaring him to be a foreigner entering into Assam from the specified territory
after 25.03.1971.
3) In his written statement the petitioner had denied the allegation
that he was a foreigner. He had stated that the verification officer never met
him or the Gaonburah and did not give him any opportunity of hearing and
stated that the case was false and baseless. He had stated that he was born at
village- Boholamukh, under Moirabari P.S. The name of his father, Ibrahim Ali
and other members of his family appear in the NRC of 1951. His father died
before 1965 and therefore, his name did not appear in the voter list of 1965,
but the name of his elder brother Rajab Ali, son of Ibrahim Ali, appeared in the
voter list of 1965 and 1970 of village- Boholamukh, District Nagaon, under 84,
Laharighat LAC. His own name appears in the voter list of 1989 of the same
village under Dist. Morigaon, under 83, Moirabari LAC. He had submitted a copy
of the jamabandi iof land standing in the name of Ibrahim Ali. Accordingly, it

Page No.# 4/16
was prayed that the case be dismissed.
4) The State had examined one Indra Mohan Borthakur, Retired
Govt. servant as PW-1, who was the verification officer engaged by the E.R.O.
He had exhibited the Verification Officer’s report (Ext.1) and his signature
[Ext.1(1)] thereon; E.R.O.’s Report (Ext.2) and his signature [Ext.2(1)] thereon;
and report by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon (Ext.3) and his
signatures [Ext.3(1) and Ext.3(2)] thereon. He was cross-examined by the
petitioner’s side.
5) The petitioner had failed to examine any witness in spite of the
opportunity given to him but he had remained absent and therefore, the learned
Tribunal had passed an opinion dated 15.07.2013, holding that the petitioner
had failed to establish his case as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 and the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who had illegally
migrated into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971.
6) Thereafter, the petitioner had assailed the said opinion dated
15.07.2013, by belatedly filing a writ petition before this Court, which was
numbered as W.P.(C) No. 6241/2017, and this Court, by an order dated
17.09.2019, set aside the impugned opinion and allowed the petitioner one
opportunity to discharge his burden, as required, under Section 9 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946.
7) In support of his defence, the petitioner had examined 2 (two)
witnesses, including himself (DW-1) and Md. Rajab Ali (DW-2). In his evidence-
on-affidavit, the petitioner had reiterated the statements made in his written
statement. However, it may be stated that in his written statement the
petitioner had stated that his father had died before 1965, but in his evidence-

Page No.# 5/16
on-affidavit, the petitioner had stated that his father had died in the year 1955.
The petitioner had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) Copy of NRC of
1951 in the name of Ibrahim Ali, petitioner’s projected father (Ext. A); (ii)
certified copy of voter list of 1965 in the name of Rajab Ali, petitioner’s
projected brother (Ext.B); (iii) certified copy of voter list of 1971 in the name of
Jubed Ali (Ext. C); (iv) certified copy of voter list of 1985 in the name of Jubed
Ali with family members (Ext.D); (v) certified copy of voter list of 1989 in the
name of Jubed Ali (Ext. E); (vi) jamabandi in the name of Jubed Ali/ Rajab Ali
(Ext.F); (vii) certificate issued in the name of Jubed Ali by the Gaonburah of
village-Boholamukh (Ext.G); and (viii) certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat
in the name of Jubed Ali (Ext.H).
8) The petitioner had examined Rajab Ali, his projected brother as
DW-2. He had stated that he was the elder brother of the petitioner and had
reiterated the statements made by the petitioner as DW-1. He had also stated
that his grandfather’s name was Sunia Sheikh and that he had casted his vote
along with the petitioner in the year 1985 and he possessed land with the
petitioner in village- Narsingbori, covered by dag no. 104 of patta no. 21 (old)/
22 (new), in Morigaon District. He had exhibited the voter list of 1970 in his
name (Ext. I); and certificate issued in the name of Jubed Ali by the Gaonburah
of village-Boholamukh (Ext.J).
9) The learned Tribunal, on examining the pleadings and evidence
available on record, had observed that in his written statement, the petitioner
had not disclosed the date of his birth, the name of his mother, grandfather,
brothers and sisters and other family members and held that the same
amounted to concealing material facts. In this regard, the learned Tribunal had
referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Momin Ali v. Union of India &

Page No.# 6/16
Ors., 2017 (2) GLT 1976, wherein it was held that where a party fails to set up a
case in his pleadings, he would be debarred from adducing evidence in his
support at the stage of trial by further laying down that variance between
pleading and proof is not permissible.
10) The learned Tribunal had observed that the petitioner had
admitted in his cross-examination that he knew what was written in his written
statement and evidence-on-affidavit. He had admitted that in his written
statement he had not pleaded that his name was wrongly written in the voter
list of 1989 and he had also admitted that Ext. A was obtained by his elder
brother 2 (two) years ago. He had stated in his cross-examination that he had 4
(four) brothers, naming one brother as Kitab Ali about whom no pleading was
made in the written statement and evidence-on-affidavit. In his evidence-on-
affidavit, the petitioner had stated that his father had died in the year 1955, but
in his cross-examination, he had stated that he does not know when his father
had expired. He did not know from where the voters’ lists were acquired and
those were obtained by his elder brother and he admitted that he did not know
about the contents of the voters’ lists as they were acquired by his elder
brother. He had also admitted that Ext.F and Ext.H were acquired by his elder
brother. Thus, the evidence was found by the learned Tribunal to be in variance
with the statement made in the cross-examination, which had rendered the
testimony of the petitioner as unreliable and inadmissible.
11) The learned Tribunal had observed that in order to establish his
link with Ibrahim Ali, his projected father, whose presence is in Indian soil prior
to 01.01.1966, the petitioner had exhibited a copy of NRC of 1951 (Ext.A), the
Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.G) and Panchayat certificate (Ext.H). The learned
Tribunal, on examination of those exhibited documents, observed that the

Page No.# 7/16
petitioner had not produced the original Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.G), but a
photocopy was produced and moreover, the said document had the State
Emblem of India, which the Gaonburah was not authorized to use under the
State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007 and accordingly, it was
held that the same rendered the document inadmissible in evidence. It was also
observed that a Gaonburah’s certificate is not an official record to establish
linkage as there is no provision under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation,
1886 for a Gaonburah to maintain records in his office and moreover, the
Executive Instructions under the said Assam Land and Revenue Regulation,
1886, does not authorize a Gaonburah to issue certificate. Accordingly, it was
held that as the certificate (Ext.G) had no statutory sanctity, the said certificate
was inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, the issuing authority was not examined
as witness, for which the said document was held to be not reliable and
trustworthy document. The Panchayat Certificate (Ext.H) was also discarded
owing to State Emblem appearing in the top of the said document. It was also
observed that Gaon Panchayat Office was not a Government Department and
accordingly, the Panchayat Certificate (Ext.H) was held to be inadmissible, not
reliable and not trustworthy document. Moreover, no reliance was placed on the
said certificate as the President of the Gaon Panchayat, who had issued the said
certificate was not examined as a witness by the petitioner.
12) On examining the NRC of 1951 (Ext.A), the learned Tribunal
observed that in his written statement, the petitioner had stated that the said
document contained the name of his father, other family members and his own
name. However, on examination of the said NRC of 1951 (Ext.A), the learned
Tribunal observed that the name of Ibrahim Ali, son of Sunia Sk is at serial no.
1, whom the petitioner claims to be his projected father. The name of one Rajab

Page No.# 8/16
Ali, who was projected to be the petitioner’s elder brother in the written
statement filed by the petitioner, was at serial no.4. However, the learned
Tribunal did not find the name of the petitioner in the said document. The
learned Tribunal observed that except for the name of Ibrahim Ali and Rajab Ali,
the petitioner was silent about his relationship with other persons whose names
appear at serial nos. 2, 3, 5 to 12 in the NRC of 1951. Hence, the document was
found to be unreliable and not trustworthy. Moreover, the learned Tribunal had
observed that the NRC is a census document prepared under Section 15 of the
Census Act, which is not admissible in evidence and that regard, reliance was
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Bhanbasa Seikh v. Union of
India & Ors., AIR 1970 A&N 206, which was approved of by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Moslem Mandal v. State of Assam & Ors., 2010 (2)
GLT 1.
13) On examination of the evidence of DW-2, Md. Rajab Ali, it was
observed that DW-2, in his cross-examination had admitted that he had not
submitted any document to prove that Jubed Ali is his younger brother. The
Gaonburah’s certificate did not record that the petitioner was the younger
brother of DW-2. It was also observed that he had not proved any document to
prove his citizenship and that the DW-2 did not state the date of birth of the
petitioner and did not state that the petitioner is the son of Ibrahim Ali and
thus, it was held that DW-2 was a tutored witness. By referring to the voter lists
of 1965 and 1971 (Ext.B and Ext.C), the learned Tribunal observed that Ext.B is
the voter list of 1965, where the name of voter Rajab Ali, age- 25 was recorded
and in Ext.C, the name of Jubed Ali, age- 28 has been recorded. Accordingly,
the learned Tribunal observed that if the petitioner was 28 years old in 1971
(Ext.C), why his name did not appear in the voter list of 1966 (Ext.B) and in

Page No.# 9/16
voter list of 1970 (Ext.I) with Rajab Ali. Moreover, it was observed that to prove
his citizenship, the petitioner will have to prove his lineage through his father
and not through his elder brother. The learned Tribunal also observed that the
name of Rajab Ali, petitioner’s mother and the petitioner’s brothers did not
appear in the voter list of 1971 (Ext.C), which made it doubtful as to whether
the said voter list was of the petitioner because as per his examination-in- chief,
the petitioner had stated that his mother had expired in the year 1985 and he
had 4 (four) brothers including himself. Accordingly, it was held that the
petitioner had not been able to show his existence in village- Bahalmukh
(mentioned as Boholamukh at some places) prior to 1971 with reliable evidence.
The learned Tribunal also took note of the fact that the petitioner had not
produced any voter lists of 14 (fourteen) years from 1971 to 1985. Therefore,
the said Ext.B and Ext.C were discarded as not being reliable and trustworthy
documents. On examining the pleadings and voter lists of 1985 and 1989 (Ext.D
and Ext.E), the learned Tribunal observed that in his written statement the
petitioner did not state that the name of his mother is Hasen Banu, but in his
evidence, the petitioner had stated that his mother was Hasen Banu and
accordingly, it was held that the said voter list of 1985 (Ext.D) did not establish
a link with the voter in the voter list of 1971. It was held that the recording of a
name in the voter list was not conclusive proof of citizenship unless a link to
pre-1971 was established. In respect of the voter list of 1989 (Ext.E), it
contained the name of Jubeda Ali and the learned Tribunal took notice of the
fact that there was no pleading that the name was wrongly recorded. The
petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not pleaded that
the name of Jubed Ali was wrongly recorded as Jubedali. Moreover, as the
petitioner had declared his age as 69 years in his evidence, the learned Tribunal

Page No.# 10/16
observed that his age in 1989 should have been 47 years, while he should have
been 49 years then. Thus, the said voter list of 1989 (Ext.E) was held to be
unreliable.
14) The jamabandi (Ext.F) was discarded as the petitioner did not
prove the mutation order and land deed to prove that the land originally stood
in the name of Ibrahim Ali. Moreover, the remark column recorded that the
mutation was done vide order dated 31.05.2011 of the Circle Officer, recording
the name of Rajab Ali and Jubed Ali as legal heirs of Ibrahim Ali. The learned
Tribunal also took note of the fact that in his written statement the petitioner
had stated that his father, Ibrahim Ali expired prior to 1965, but in his evidence,
the petitioner had stated that his father died in the year 1955 but in his cross-
examination, the petitioner had stated that he does not know when his father
had expired. Thus, it was observed that contrary to Section 50 of the Assam
Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, requiring mutation to be done within 6
(six) months, in this case the mutation was done after 50 years. It was held that
the jamabandi is not a document of title and in that regard, the case of Guljan
Bibi @ Gule Banu @ Gule Khatun @ Phule Khatun & Ors. v. Union of India & 5
Ors., W.P.(C) No. 971/2019, decided on 07.08.2019, reported in (2019) 0
Supreme(Gau) 849, was relied upon.
15) Accordingly, it was observed that no other reliable and
trustworthy documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner. Hence, it
was held that the petitioner had failed to prove his birth in India through
genuine Indian parents and it was held that rather, it was proved that the
petitioner had entered into India (Assam) illegally from the specified territory,
i.e. Bangladesh on or after 25.03.1971. It was held that the petitioner had failed
to discharge his burden of proof with reliable and trustworthy documents or by

Page No.# 11/16
reliable oral evidence that he and his parents and grandparents were citizens of
India and existed in Indian soil prior to 25.03.1971. Consequently, the reference
was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the State.
16) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the
evidence of the petitioner’s side was rejected by the learned Tribunal only
because of minor discrepancies in respect of the names of family members. It
was submitted that merely because the petitioner did not refer to all the names
appearing in the NRC 1951, the entire evidence of the petitioner’s side was
discarded. It was submitted that the evidence of Rajab Ali, the elder brother of
the petitioner was also arbitrarily discarded owing to minor discrepancies, in
spite of the fact that his name appeared in the voter list of 1970 (Ext.1). It was
submitted that the impugned opinion was not sustainable and the same be set
aside.
17) Having heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter,
perused the writ petition and the learned Tribunal’s records that were called for.
18) The document that has been exhibited as Ext.1, is not a certified
copy of the NRC, but it is a certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Border), Nagaon, and it was stated therein as follows – “Certified that I
have checked the original NRC of 1951 and found the following
names:”Therefore, the said document was not a primary evidence and thus not
otherwise admissible. Moreover, the said document is found to be rightly
discarded in light of the provisions of Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948, which
prescribes that the records of census are not open to inspection nor admissible
in evidence. Hence, reliance by the learned Tribunal on the decision of this
Court in the case of Bhanbasa Seikh (supra), as approved by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Moslem Mandal [2010 (2) GLT 1] cannot be held to

Page No.# 12/16
be erroneous.
19) The petitioner had not exhibited any voter list where the names
of the petitioner and Rajab Ali (DW-2) appear together. Their names appear
together in the jamabandi (Ext.F), which was entered therein pursuant to order
dated 31.05.2011, passed by the Circle Officer. As mentioned hereinbefore, the
first version of the petitioner, in his written statement, is that his father, namely,
Ibrahim Ali, expired prior to 1965. The second version of the petitioner is in his
evidence-on-affidavit, wherein the petitioner had stated that his father died in
the year 1955. The third version of the petitioner in his cross-examination is
that he does not know when his father had expired. Thus, the mutation was
done after 50 years, vide mutation order dated 31.05.2011, is questionable.
20) In this case the ERO Reference was made on 20.10.1997 and
the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, who is the competent
authority, had submitted reference before the erstwhile Illegal Migrants
(Determination) Tribunal, Morigaon, on 29.06.1998. On the Illegal Migrants
(Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 was declared ultra vires by the Supreme
Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2005) 5 SCC 665, and directed that all pending reference be transferred to the
Foreigners Tribunals, the reference in this case was re-sent to the Foreigners
nd
Tribunal (2 ), Morigaon, Assam, where it was received and registered as Case
No. F.T.(D) 464/2010. The petitioner appeared for the first time in the said
proceeding on 27.05.2011. The petitioner was declared to be a foreigner by
opinion dated 15.07.2013. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 17.09.2019,
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6241/ 2017, whereby the said ex parte
opinion was set aside, the petitioner had participated in the proceeding before
the learned Tribunal. Hence, the first date of appearance of the petitioner before

Page No.# 13/16
the learned Foreigners Tribunal was 27.05.2011, and on 31.05.2011, the land
was mutated in the name of the petitioner and DW-2. The name of only Rajab
Ali and Jubed Ali was mutated vide order dated 31.05.2011. In paragraph 2 of
this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he has two elder brothers, Late
Jonab Ali and Md. Rajab Ali, he has one elder sister, Late Neejan Bibi. He has
one younger sister, Amirjaan Nessa and two younger brothers, namely, Md.
Asraf Ali and Md. Abed Ali. However, there is no explanation by the petitioner
why the land was mutated in the name of only two sons of Late Ibrahim Ali in
exclusion of other sisters and brothers.
21) In view of the said piece of evidence, where the petitioner had
disclosed the existence of 7 (seven) siblings including himself, it would be again
relevant to refer to the decision of the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra),
where the Supreme Court of India had observed in paragraph 26 to the effect
that to establish his citizenship, one must provide following information – i.e.
date of birth, place of birth, date of birth and family details of parents, details of
grandparents to prove his claim as a citizen. The same has a great significance
because under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden is on the
petitioner to prove that he is not a foreigner. As mentioned in the foregoing
paragraph, the petitioner had stated that his father in the year 1955, the same
would be plausible if he had only one elder brother. But then he had also stated
that his father had died in the year 1965, with the said piece of evidence, the
birth of younger siblings is plausible. As per evidence-on- affidavit by the
petitioner, his age was 69 years on 21.10.2019 and the age of Md. Rajab Ali
(DW- 2) was 71 years on 29.10.2019. Thus, the year of birth of the petitioner
was 1950 and the year of birth of Jonab Ali was 1948. However, the name of
the father of the petitioner, uncle of the petitioner and other 4 (four) siblings did

Page No.# 14/16
not appear together in any voter list. Moreover, the projected family of the
petitioner is not together in any exhibited document, thus, the respective year
of birth of all the siblings cannot be ascertain.The name of the mother of the
petitioner is not pleaded in the written statement. Thus, the year of death of the
father had clanged to match with the introduction of petitioner’s siblings, which
makes the entire evidence doubtful.
22) It is well settled that in the absence of contemporaneous
documents, a certificate issued by the Gaonburah cannot be considered as a
proof of citizenship. The learned Tribunal had correctly held that under the
Executive Instructions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, it
is not the duty of the Gaonburah to maintain any record of population under his
charge. If one needs any authority on the point, the decision of this Court in the
case of Jabeda Begum v. Union of India & Ors., (2021) 1 GLR 59:2020 (2) GLT
603, may be referred to. In the said case by referring to the decision of the
Supreme Court of India in the case of Rupajan Begum v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2018) 1 SCC 579, it was held that certificate issued by the Gaonburah can
never be the proof of citizenship of a person and that such certificate can only
be used by a married woman to prove that after marriage, she had shifted to
her matrimonial home.
23) Moreover, the certificate issued by the Gaonburah (Ext.G) and
Gaon Panchayat (Ext.H) are found to be rightly discarded as the authors of
those two documents were not examined and the contents of the said two
certificates were not proved with the aid of any contemporaneous records.
24) Except for the voter list of 1971 (Ext.C), other voter lists of 1985
(Ext.D) and 1989 (Ext.E) are post 1971 documents. In the voter list of 1985, the
name of the voter is Jubeda Ali. It has been settled by the Supreme Court of

Page No.# 15/16
India in the case of Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 534,
to the effect that when identity of all members of the family is established
including appellant, he cannot be declared a foreigner just because there is a
discrepancy in name of his grandfather in some documents. Assuming that the
father of the petitioner had died in the year 1955 and 1965, for which his name
did not appear in subsequent voter list, yet, the other remaining family
members are not together. Even a clear description of mother and siblings has
not been pleaded in the written statements. Thus, in the case in hand, the
family of the projected father of the petitioner is not together. It appears that
based on the voter lists, attempt has been made to project those voters as
projected family members.
25) Thus, the Court does not find any fault with the finding recorded
by the learned Tribunal. There are no documents to link the petitioner with his
grandparents and parents.
26) Therefore, in light of discussions above, this Court does not find
that the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by any
jurisdictional error or that there was any failure of giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner. Therefore, as theCourt is exercising supervisory jurisdiction
and not appellatejurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting the opinion
rendered by the learned Tribunal with the view of the Court. This is not a
casewhere the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidenceor that
its finding is dehors the evidence on record.
27) Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving
the parties to bear their own cost.
28) Bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.06.2020, is

Page No.# 16/16
revoked. The consequences of the opinion dated 18.11.2019, passed by the
nd
learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 2 , Morigaon, Assam, in Case No. F.T. (D)
464/2010 [arising out of Police Ref. D/N Case No. 2413/ 98 dated 29.06.1998;
E.R.O. Ref. No. 83/93/2 dated 20.10.1997], thereby declaring him to be a
foreigner entering into Assam from the specified territory after 25.03.1971,
would follow.
29) The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s record along with a
copy of this order, to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal
for future reference.

JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by Champak
Rajbongshi
Date: 2026.10.16 14:08:35
+05'30'
Comparing Assistant Private Secretary