Lutfa Begum vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010301642019
2026:GAU-AS:16697
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/9135/2019
LUTFA BEGUM
D/O- TASIR ALI LASKAR, W/O- MD. ABDUL JALIL, R/O- VILL- UTTAR
ASHINAGAR, P.S- DOBOKA, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW
DELHI- 01
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
3:THE FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL
NAGAON COURT NO. 10 AT SANKARDEVNAGAR
DIST- HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782442
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HOJAI
P.O SANKARDEV NAGAR
DIST- HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782442
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
HOJAI
Page No.# 2/18
SANKAR DEV NAGAR
HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782442
6:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
P.S- DOBOKA
DIST- HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782428
7:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NEW DELHI- 110001
8:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NRC
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A J ATIA, MS A H ATIA,MS J MARIYAM
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. A.J. Atia.
Advocate the respondents : Ms. A. Verma, SC, FT & Border matters.
: Mr. A.I. Ali, SC, ECI.
: Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 07.08.2026.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.11.2026.
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : NO.
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : YES.
Page No.# 3/18
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. A.
Verma, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2, 5, 6 and 8; Mr. A.I. Ali,
learned standing counsel for respondent no. 7; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl.
Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no. 4.
2) It is noticed that the concerned Foreigners Tribunal has been
arrayed as respondent no. 3. As the said learned Tribunal is not required to
defend its opinion, it is neither a necessary nor a proper party in this writ
petition. Therefore, the name of respondent no. 3 is struck-off without requiring
altering seriatim of respondents.
3) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Lutfa Begum has challenged the opinion
th
dated 05.09.2019, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon 10 ,
Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, Assam, in F.T.(D) Case No. 1468/2015, arising out of S.|
P.(B)’s F.T. Case No. 483/2013, thereby declaring her to be a foreigner entering
into Assam illegally without any valid document from the specified territory (i.e.
Bangladesh) after 25.03.1971.
4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had exhibited 18 (eighteen) documents as exhibits to prove her
defence that she was not a foreigner, but the learned Tribunal disbelieved the
pleadings and evidence due to minor discrepancies in the names and age of
voters on comparative reading of the exhibited documents. It was submitted
Page No.# 4/18
that the State had failed to discharge its burden of proof by not examining any
independent witnesses. Moreover, the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate
that as the petitioner was born in India, she was a citizen of India as per the
provision of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. It was submitted that the
names of the grandparents, parents and paternal uncles appeared in the voter
lists all throughout from the same village. The petitioner was a student of
Karoiguri Muktab School and left the school on 31.12.1985, for which the
petitioner had relied on the School Head Master’s certificate. The petitioner was
married to Abdul Jalil Mazumdar, son of Matiur Rahman Mazumdar of village-
Uttar Ashinagar, P.S. Doboka, Dist. Nagaon, Assam, on 01.03.1992 vide
registered Kabinnama no. 244/1992. It was also submitted that the grandfather
of the petitioner owned two plots of land, one of which was purchased vide
registered sale deed dated 27.08.1946, and after his death, the said plots of
land came to be mutated in the names of her father and maternal uncles. Her
father, uncles and paternal aunts also owned a plot of land which was mutated
in their names. It was submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner had
travelled with “Pilgrim Pass” to Mecca, bearing R/C No. 5114 dated 02.08.1946,
which was issued by the Haj Committee. It was also submitted that the
petitioner was not served with grounds for suspecting the petitioner to be a
foreigner and therefore, the impugned opinion was not sustainable on facts and
in law.
5) The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the
written statement filed by the petitioner and her evidence-on- affidavit as DW-1
and had submitted as follows:-
a. In her written statement the petitioner had stated that her
Page No.# 5/18
parents and grandparents were citizens of India. She was born and
brought up at Pub Jaruni, under Murajhar P.S., in the district of
Nagaon, Assam. Her grandfather is Abdul Jabbar @ Munshi Abdul
Zabbar, who had died in the year 1962. Her grandmother is Ayujan
Bibi, who had died in the year 1960. Her father is Tasir Ali @ Tasir Ali
Laskar and her mother is Fulerun Nessa. It was submitted that the
grandparents and parents of the petitioner were permanent residents
of village- Pub Jaruni, under Murajhar P.S.
b. It was submitted that the names of her grandparents had paternal
uncles appeared in the voter list of 1960 of village Pub Jaruni, under
then Lanka P.S., under Jamunamukh LAC as (i) Haji Aa. Jabbar, son of
Jila, (ii) Ayujan Bibi, wife of Haji Aa. Jabbar, (iii) Iskagur Ali, son of Ha.
Aa. Jabbar, and (iv) Irsad Ali, son of Ha. Aa. Jabbar, then District
Nagaon. It was submitted that as the father of the petitioner was
minor, his name did not appear in the voter list of 1966.
c. It was submitted that in the voter list of 1966 and 1970, the
names of paternal uncles of the petitioner were recorded as (i)
Iskandar Ali, son of Aa. Jabbar Ali, (ii) Isad, son of Aa. Jabbar and (iii)
Jair Ali, son of Aa. Jabbar of village- Pub Jaroni, under Murajhar P.S.
d. The name of the father of the petitioner was recorded in the
Electoral Roll of 1971 as Tasir Ali, son of Aa. Jabbar at village Pub
Jaroni under Murajhar P.S. in the District of Nagaon (Assam), under 93
No. Hojai L.A.C.
e. The name of her paternal uncles and father were recorded in the
Electoral Roll of 1975 as (i) Iskandar Ali, son of Aa. Jabbar, (ii) Isad Ali,
Page No.# 6/18
son of Aa. Jabbar, (iii) Jair Ali, son of Aa. Jabbar, (iv) Tasir Ali, son of
Aa. Jabbar, and (v) Batir Ali, son of Aa. Jabbar at village Pub Jaroni
under 92 No. Jamunamukh L.A.C
f.
The name of her paternal uncles and parents were recorded in
the Electoral Roll of 1977 as (i) Iskandar Ali, son of Abdul Jabbar, (ii)
Isad Ali, son of Abdul Jabbar, (iii) Jahir Ali, son of Abdul Jabbar, (iv)
Tasir Ali Laskar, son of Abdul Jabbar, (v) Batir Ali Laskar, son of Abdul
Jabbar, and (vi) Fulerun Nessa, wife of Tasir Ali at village Pub Jaroni
under 92 No. Jamunamukh L.A.C.
g.
The names of her paternal uncles and parents were recorded in
the Electoral Roll of 1985 as (i) Tasir, son of Jabbar, (ii) Batir, son of
Jabbar, (iii) Fawjul, son of Jabbar, and (iv) Fulerun, wife of Asir at
village Pub Jaruni under 90 No. Jamunamukh L.A.C.
h. The names of her parents were recorded in the Electoral Roll of
1993 as Tasir Ali Long, son of Aa. Jabbar and Fulerun Nessa, wife of
Tasir Ali at village Pub Jaroni under 90 No. Jamunamukh L.A.C.
i. The name of her parents were recorded in the Electoral Roll of
1997 as Tasir Ali, son of Ang. Jabbar and Fulerun Nessa, wife of Tasir
at village Pub Jaroni under 90 No. Jamunamukh L.A.C.
j. The names of her parents were recorded in the Electoral Roll of
2005, 2010 and 2014 as Tasir Ali, son of Abdul Jabbar and Fulerun
Nessa, wife of Tasir Ali at village Pub Jaroni under 90 No. Jamunamukh
L.A.C.
k. Her mother expired in the year 2016 as such her father’s name
was recorded in the Electoral Roll of 2018 as Tasir Ali, son of Abdul
Page No.# 7/18
Jabbar at village Pub Jaroni under 90 No. Jamunamukh L.A.C.
l. She has been residing permanently at village Uttar Ashinagar
under Doboka, P.S. in the District of Nagaon (Assam), as such the
President, Ashinagar Goon Panchayat had issued a certificate in the
name of the petitioner.
m. The petitioner is the daughter of Tasir Ali of village Pub Jaruni and
as such the Govt. Gaonburah of said village had issued a certificate in
her name.
n. She was a student of Karoiguri Muktab School and left the said
School on 31.12.1985, as such the Head Master of said School had
issued a Certificate in her name.
o. On 01.03.1992, her marriage was held at Uttar Ashinagar Town,
P.S. Doboka, Dist. Nagaon, Assam vide registered kabinnama no.
244/1992.
p. The name of her father was recorded in the NRC of 1951 as Tasir
Ali, son of Aa. Jabrar vide bearing Legacy Data Code No. 280-0018-
2330 at village Pub Jaroni.
q. Her name was been recorded in the Electoral Roll of 1997 as Lutfa
Begum, wife of Jalil at village Uttar Ashinagar under 90 No.
Jamunamukh L.A.C, but marked as "D".
r. The name of her father appeared in the voter list of 1971 as Tasir
Ali, son of Aa. Jabbar; in the Voter List of 1985 as Tasir, son of Jabbar;
in the voter list of 1993 as Tasir Ali Long, son of Aa. Jabbar; in the
Voter List of 1997 as Tasir Ali, son of Ang. Jabbar; in the NRC 1951 as
Tasir Ali, son of Aa. Jabrar. Likewise, the name of her mother was
Page No.# 8/18
recorded in the Voter List of 1977 as Fulorun Nessa, wife Tasir Ali; in
the Voter List of 1985 as Fulerun wife of Asir; in the Voter List of 1997
as Fulerun Nessa, wife of Tasir. Thus, it was submitted that all the
names viz., Abdul Jabbar, Abdul Jabbar Munchi, Aa. Jabbar, Aa. Jabrar
and Ang Jabbar are the names of one and same person i.e. the
grandfather of the petitioner. The names, Tasir Ali Laskar, Tasir Ali,
Tasir and Asir are the names of one and same person i.e. the father of
the petitioner. The names, Fulerun Nessa, Fulorun Nessa and Fulerun
are the names of one and same person i.e. the mother of the
petitioner.
s. It was submitted that name of the petitioner has been enrolled in
the electoral rolls of 1971, 1985, 1993, 1997, 2005, 2010, 2014 and
2018 and the name of her mother was been enrolled in the electoral
rolls of 1977, 1985, 1993, 1997, 2005, 2010 and 2014.
t. It was submitted that in her evidence, the petitioner had exhibited
the sale deed dated 14.03.1933 and sale deed dated 27.08.1946,
regarding purchase of land by her grandfather as well as jamabandi to
prove the presence of her grandfather in the same village prior to
independence of the Country.
u. It was submitted that there are some minor discrepancies in
respect of age and spelling of name of the petitioner, her parents and
grandfather, which are mistakes while preparing the electoral rolls.
Accordingly, it was submitted that these minor discrepancies were
liable to be ignored as those mistakes were not made by the petitioner.
v. It was submitted that the petitioner, her parents and grandparents
Page No.# 9/18
are bona fide Indian citizen and thus, they have not entered in India
illegally after 25.03.1971 from Bangladesh.
6) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Border and FT
matters has made her submissions to support to the impugned opinion. It was
submitted that the petitioner did not exhibit any document which shows the
presence of the petitioner and her parents together and the two documents
which could possibly link the petitioner with her projected parents were the
school certificate (Ext.12) and kabinnama (Ext.13), which were not proved by
the petitioners by examining their authors. It was submitted that the petitioner
did not plead about sale deed dated 27.08.1946 (Ext.17) in her written
statement and the jamabandi (Ext.15) does not contain the reason how the
names of the projected father of the petitioner was entered in the land revenue
records. It was also submitted that DW-2 and DW-3 did not prove any document
to establish the linkage of the petitioner with her projected parents and
grandparents. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned opinion did not call for
any interference.
7) It is seen from the records that the petitioner, in support of her
defence, had filed her evidence-on- affidavit and had reiterated the statements
which she had made in her written statement. The petitioner had exhibited the
following 18 (eighteen) documents:-
a. Certified copy of voter list of 1966 (Ext.1).
b. Certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.2).
c. Certified copy of voter list of 1971 (Ext.3).
d. Certified copy of voter list of 1993 (Ext.4).
e. Certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.5).
f. Certified copy of voter list of 2005 (Ext.6).
g. Certified copy of voter list of 2010 (Ext.7).
Page No.# 10/18
h. Certified copy of voter list of 2014 (Ext.8).
i. Certified copy of voter list of 2018 (Ext.9).
j. Death certificate of Fulerun Nessa dated 18.01.2016 (Ext.10).
k. Certificate dated 23.01.2016, issued by President, Ashinagar Gaon Panchayat
(Ext.11).
l. Certificate dated 08.05.2017, issued by the Head Master of Koroiguri Moktab
School, Koroiguri (Ext.12).
m. Kabinnama registered on 13.02.1992 (Ext.13).
n. Computer generated jamabandi copy (Ext.14) (not found available in the
Tribunal’s record).
o. Certified copy of jamabandi (Ext.15).
p. Original Sale Deed No. 291 dated 14.03.1933 (Ext.16).
q. Original Sale Deed No. 7548 dated 28.08.1946 (Ext.17).
r. Certified copy of voter list of 1975 (Ext.18).
8) In her cross-examination, the petitioner (DW-1) had stated that
her father are 7 (seven) brothers. They are Late Maskandar Ali, Late Iskandar
Ali, Late Joir Ali, Late Ishad Ali, Batir Ali, Tasir Ali and Faijul Hoque Ali. Her
father had one sister, Late Atabun Nessa. The name of her grandfather is Late
Abdul Jabbar Munshi. She has 7 (seven) brothers and sisters, namely,
Kamruddin (approx. 50 years), Ramijuddin (40 years approx.), Soifuddin (35
years approx.), Khairun Nessa Begum (45 years approx.), Nehar Begum (35
years approx.), Hasna Begum (33 years approx.) and Lutfa Begum (40 years
approx.). She had stated that she had never casted her vote though her name
was enlisted in the voters lists. She had submitted the death certificate of her
mother. She resides at Uttar Ashinagar and as a proof of her residence, she had
filed certificate from Gaonburah and Gaon Panchayat. She was married with
Abdul Jalil 30 (thirty) years ago and as a proof of her marriage, she had
submitted kabinnama. She has six daughters and no son. Her daughters are
Afsana Begum (22 years approx.), Selina Afruz, Alifa Begum (13 years approx.),
Jumana Begum (11 years), Ajija Siddika (10 years) and Ajuwa Begum (6 years).
Page No.# 11/18
She had stated that as she cannot see properly, she is finding difficult to state
what documents she had submitted.
9) In her reply to the learned Tribunal’s queries, the petitioner had
stated that she was born about 40 years ago. Her father was born in Pub Jaroni
village and her mother, Late Fulerun Nessa was born in Paschim Jaroni village.
He father is presently aged 65 years. Her mother had expired 3 years ago and
she does not remember her age at the time of her death. She had studied in
school upto Class-II and III. She had filed certificate of studying in school. Her
father were 7 (seven) brothers.
10) In support of her defence, the petitioner had also examined Md.
Tasir Ali Laskar @ Tasir Ali, her projected father as DW-2, who in his evidence-
on- affidavit had stated that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth and a
permanent resident of village- Uttar Ashinagar, P.O. Nilbagan, P.S. Doboka, Dist.
Hojai (Assam). She was born and brought up at village- Pub Jaruni, P.O.
Karoiguri, P.S. Murajhar, Dist. Hojai (Assam). He had stated that the petitioner is
his daughter and his name has been recorded in the voter list since 1971 and
village- Pub Jaruni under Murajhar P.S., in the district of Nagaon. The name of
his brothers have appeared in the electoral rolls of 1966, 1970 and 1985. His
name appears in the electoral roll since 1971 and the name of his mother
appeared in the electoral roll of 1985, 1993, 1997, 2005, 2010, and 2014 and
the certified copies thereof has been exhibited by the petitioner. His parents had
expired in village- Pub Jaruni. He had also reiterated that the petitioner is not a
foreigner but Indian by birth and her grandparents and parents were bona fide
Indian citizens and the petitioner has sufficient documents to prove her
citizenship. In his cross-examination, DW-2 had stated that his daughter was
Page No.# 12/18
born in 1971 at village- Pub Jaruni through his marriage with Late Fulerun
Nessa, who died on 01.01.2006. He was residing and casting his vote since
1971 and his brother Batir Ali Laskar also continued to cast his vote there. He
had stated that his parents were Haji Abdul Jabbar and Late Ajuja Bibi and that
he had 8 (eight) siblings. He had stated that the petitioner got married in 1992
with Abdul Jalil Mazumdar and started to reside with her husband at Uttar
Ashinagar. He had placed reliance on the school certificate, Gaon Panchayat
certificate and Kabinnama submitted in the case to prove his parentage of the
petitioner.
11) The learned Tribunal had discarded the Gaon Panchayat
Certificate (Ext.11), School certificate (Ext.12), and kabinnama (Ext.13), as
those documents were not proved in accordance with law and had no probative
value. The learned Tribunal then proceeded to describe the contents of Ext.1 to
Ext.10 and Ext.14 to Ext.18 and on the basis of the said exhibited documents,
held that the said exhibited voter’s lists proved the existence of persons whose
names appeared therein. The learned Tribunal had discarded Ext.10 and Ext.17
because the said documents were not referred in petitioner’s written statement.
12) In respect of the jamabandi (Ext.14), it was observed that as
pleaded in written statement, the said document shows Tasir Ali as the son of
Aa. Jabbar and as a pattadar of plot of land covered by Dag no. 218, 225, 226
and 31 of P.P. No. 28 at village Pub Jaroni and the remark column shows that
Tasir Ali had become pattadar of the said plot of land by dint of mutation by
inheritance from his father, Abdul Jabbar Munshi on 08.02.1976. However, the
said jamabandi (Ext.14) was discarded as it was a computer generated copy
and Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 needed to be applied to ascertain
Page No.# 13/18
its authenticity and held the non-applicability of the said provision by the
petitioner has made the document unreliable for evidence. Similarly, by referring
to the contents of the jamabandi (Ext.15), it was observed that the same proves
that Maskandar Ali, Iskandar Ali, Isad Ali, Jahir Ali, Tasir Ali, Batir Ali, Foizul
Hoque and Atabun Nessa as sons and daughters of Aa. Jabbar and as pattadars
of a plot of land covered by Dag nos. 219, 220, 222, 223, 224 and 556 of P.P.
No. 149 situated at Pub Jaroni Gaon under Mouza Namati. However, as the
remarks column is silent in respect of recording of the said persons as
pattadars, so it was discarded as unreliable.
13) Jamabandi (Ext.14), which is not found in the learned Tribunal’s
record, is referred by the learned Tribunal as a computer generated one. The
learned Tribunal has not held that Ext.14 is not a certified copy of jamabandi. A
Jamabandi is a land revenue record, which is issued by the public authority from
the public record. Therefore, if the land revenue authorities issue a certified
copy of jamabandi without due certification under Section 65-B(4) of the
Evidence Act, 1872, the learned Tribunal ought not to penalize the petitioner for
the same because the petitioner is an illiterate woman, who had affixed her
right hand thumb impression in her written statement and evidence-on-affidavit
and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have recorded its objection as to
the admissibility of the said piece of documentary exhibit, when the petitioner
was not questioned on admissibility of the said documentary evidence during
her cross-examination. A jamabandi is a land revenue record, which is
maintained by the concerned land and revenue establishment under the
Revenue Department of the State Government and are under the establishment
of the concerned District Commissioners of the Districts in the State of Assam.
Page No.# 14/18
The learned Tribunal appears to have failed to take into consideration that as
per the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation,
1886, it is provided that the entry in the record-of- rights made under the said
section shall, unless the contrary is proved, presumed to be correct.
14) Similarly, by referred to the sale deed dated 14.03.1933 (Ext.16),
it was held that as pleaded in the written statement, the said document shows
Abdul Jabbar Munshi as a resident of village Pub Jaroni and as a purchaser of a
plot of land covered by Dag No. 79, 80, 86, 87 and 88 of P.P. No. 13, situated at
Pub Jaroni Kissamat under Na-mati Mouza. However, the said document was
discarded as it was required to be proved on the basis of record, which was not
done for which it had lost its probative value.
15) The learned Tribunal had observed that the name of the
petitioner did not appear as an electorate in any voter list and the reason is
unexplained by the petitioner. It was observed that DW-1 and DW-2 had stated
in their cross-examination that Maskandar Ali was their paternal uncle and
brother respectively, but his name did not appear as an electorate in any voter
list. The learned Tribunal had held that the petitioner had suppressed her age
and date/year of birth, names of her brothers and sisters and date/year of her
marriage. It was held that from the cross-examination of DW-2 and Ext. nos. 3
to 9, it can be presumed that the projected father, Tasir Ali of the petitioner has
presence in Indian soil since prior to 1971, but the petitioner’s failure to
establish her relationship with her projected parents marred her claim of
citizenship of India. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner had failed to
prove and establish her claim of citizenship of India by discharging her
mandatory burden and liability as per Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Page No.# 15/18
Consequently, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of who had illegally
entered into India on or after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory without
any valid document.
16) At the outset, it may be mentioned that the jamabandi, which
was proved and marked as Ext.14 is not available in the record. The other
exhibited documents are available in the record at pages 92 to 111 of the
Tribunal’s record. However, a photocopy thereof is available at pages 68-69 of
the Tribunal’s record. As observed by the learned Tribunal, the said jamabandi
(Ext.14) discloses that by way of inheritance from Abdul Jabbar, the name of
Tasir Ali was mutated as a pattadar of the said plot of land by virtue of order
dated 08.02.1976, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. From the said
entry in the jamabandi (Ext.14), it can be presumed that the land was in the
name of Abdul Jabbar prior to 08.02.1976.
17) The learned Tribunal had arrived at a finding that the names of
pattadars including Tasir Ali appears in the jamabandi (Ext.15), but the said
exhibited document was discarded because there was no corresponding entry in
the remarks column of the jamabandi (Ext.15). However, the learned Tribunal
had failed to take notice of the fact that in the remarks column, it was
mentioned that the names were entered on receipt of premium for converting
the land into a miyadi (periodic patta). However, the finding of the learned
Tribunal on Ext.15 is not vitiated for discarding the said document.
18) However, in respect of the 2 (two) exhibited sale deed dated
14.03.1933 (Ext.16) and 27.08.1946 (Ext.17) is concerned, the said two
documents are of pre-independence period. The learned Tribunal has not given
a finding that the said two sale deeds were not the original documents,
Page No.# 16/18
however, the learned Tribunal has been oblivious of the provision of Section 90
of the Evidence Act, 1872, corresponding to Section 92 of the Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023, which provides certain presumptions in respect of a document
which is proved to be thirty years old and is produced from custody which the
Court considers proper. Therefore, there was no requirement for the petitioner
to prove the said two exhibited sale deeds on the basis of records. The learned
Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the petitioner is not claiming title
through those two sale deeds, but she is claiming her lineage through the said
two sale deeds. The learned Tribunal has perhaps not considered that there is a
remote probability that a person would part with two original sale deeds
registered on 14.03.1933 and 27.08.1946 with a stranger and moreover, the
learned Tribunal, while discussing sale deed dated 14.03.1933 (Ext.16), has
accepted that the same shows Abdul Jabbar Munshi to be a resident of Pub
Jaroni village and the petitioner claims the said Abdul Jabbar Munshi to be her
grandfather. Moreover, while discussing Ext. nos. 3 to 9, the learned Tribunal
has specifically held that the pleading in the written statement and the said
exhibits prove that Tasir Ali is the son of Abdul Jabbar of Pub Jaroni. The
petitioner claims Tasir Ali to be her father.
19) While discussing the jamabandi (Ext.14), the learned Tribunal
had held that Tasir Ali is the son of Abdul Jabbar and that he had become
pattadar by dint of mutation. In the discussions made in the paragraph 12
above, the learned Tribunal had held that Tasir Ali is the son of Aa. Jabbar.
Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, as Tasir Ali cannot possibly be the
son of two persons, the only presumption is that Aa. Jabbar and Abdul Jabbar
are same and one person.
Page No.# 17/18
20) Thus, the discarding of the two jamabandi (Ext.14 and Ext.15)
and the two sale deeds (Ext.16 and Ext.17) is not found sustainable on facts
and in law.
21) Therefore, in light of discussions above, this Court is inclined to
hold that the impugned opinion dated 05.09.2019, passed by the learned
th
Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon 10 , Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, Assam, in F.T.(D)
Case No. 1468/2015, arising out of S.P.(B)’s F.T. Case No. 483/2013, is vitiated
by jurisdictional error by not appreciating the evidence in light of the legal
provisions referred above in respect of Ext.14 to Ext.17. As the Court is
exercising supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court
would refrain from substituting the opinion rendered by the learned tribunal
with the view of the Court.
22) Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned opinion dated
th
05.09.2019, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon 10 , Sankardev
Nagar, Hojai, Assam, in F.T.(D) Case No. 1468/2015, arising out of S.P.(B)’s F.T.
Case No. 483/2013, is set aside. However, the matter is remanded back to the
said learned Tribunal for a fresh hearing and opinion in accordance in law.
23) There shall be no order as to cost.
24) In the event the learned Tribunal is still of the view that the said
Ext. 14 to Ext.17 is required to be proved by records, then the petitioner would
be given an opportunity to take steps to call for the records from the concerned
authorities in the event the records are not produced by the authorities at the
request/ prayer made by the petitioner.
25) The petitioner, who is represented by her learned counsel in this
Page No.# 18/18
matter, is directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal within the outer
time of 15.12.2026, and by producing a certified copy of this order, wait for
further orders to be passed by the learned Tribunal.
26) Moreover, the petitioner shall be also ready to make a prayer for
bail and if such a prayer is made, the same shall be considered and the bail so
granted shall be made effective for a period upto 30 (thirty) days from the date
of fresh opinion to be passed by the said learned Tribunal.
27) The Registry shall return the learned Tribunal’s record
expeditiously along with a copy of this judgment and order to be made a part of
record by the said learned Tribunal for future reference.
28) The learned standing counsel for the Border and FT matters
shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the concerned authorities
including the Superintendent of Police (Border), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar for their
information.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by Champak
Rajbongshi
Date: 2026.11.13 14:05:17 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant Private Secretary