JOYNAL TALUKDAR @ JOYNAL ABDIN V. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS

WP(C)/82/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around Joynal Talukdar, who challenged the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring him a foreigner. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove that Talukdar or his father were Indian citizens or had resided in India before the cut-off dates specified in the Citizenship Act. The High Court examined various documents and testimonies but found them inadequate to establish the petitioner's claims of citizenship. The court also addressed procedural aspects, including the maintainability of the writ petition concerning the delay in filing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 670238 (HC-ASSAM NAGALAND MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: High Court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Uttam Ghosh Vs. The Union of India and Ors., Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, Idrish Ali Vs. Union of India, Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., HRA Choudhury Vs Election Commission of India, Mameja Khatun (supra), Assam Public Works vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Foreigners Act, 1946, Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, Evidence Act, 1872, Citizenship Act, 1955
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DY S G I GA ASSAM SC ECI SC F T; P BARUA; P SARMAH
• Assessee Lawyers: A W AMAN; MD RAHMAN; SAMIM RAHMAN; SARFRAZ NAWAZ
• Keywords: Foreigner; Citizenship; D voter; Electoral roll; Foreigners tribunal; Local verification officer; Illegal migrants
• Section: 2(A); 3; 50; 226; 6A(2)

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010278622024 2025:GAU-AS:6289-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/82/2025 JOYNAL TALUKDAR @ JOYNAL ABDIN SON OF LATE MOKESED ALI, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BILORTARI, MOUZA- RUPSHI, P.S.- KALGACHIA, IN THE BARPETA DISTRICT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. PIN- 110001. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER. NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA 781301. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA Page No.# 2/15 781301 ASSAM. 6:THE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A W AMAN, MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI For the petitioner : Mr. A.W. Aman, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. U.K. Goswami, CGC. For FT and NRC : Mr. J. Payeng, SC. For ECI : Ms. P. Barua, SC. For the State respondents : Mr. P. Sarmah, Govt. Advocate. Date of hearing : 04.03.2025. Date of judgment : 20.05.2025. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A.W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. Page No.# 3/15 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 25.03.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Barpeta 11th, in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 1536/2017, corresponding to P.E. No. IM(D)T Case No. 5391(A), dated 3/8 (sic.), by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. 3. At the outset, it is seen that though the opinion was passed on 25.03.2021 in a contested proceedings, this writ petition has been filed on 20.12.2024. Accordingly, the issue of maintainability of the challenge on account of delay is also required to be taken up. 4. Pursuant to notice issued by order dated 10.01.2025, the records of the Tribunal is received. The learned counsel for both sides given ample opportunity to examine the records. 5. As per the records, notice to the petitioner was issued by order dated 28.02.2019, which was returned after service and after several adjournments, the petitioner had filed his written statement on 17.09.2019. After taking several adjournments, the petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and he was cross- examined by the learned AGP and discharged. The petitioner had also examined one Nur Islam Talukdar as DW-2 on 10.02.2021 and the said witness was also cross-examined and discharged. The matter was heard on 22.02.2021. It may be stated that all the exhibited documents were marked as Ext.1 to Ext.10 on 10.02.2021. The opinion was passed on 25.03.2021. 6. In his written statement, the petitioner has stated that the allegation made by the prosecution was false, baseless and concocted and brought against the petitioner out of wrong presumption without proper investigation. He Page No.# 4/15 claimed that Late Moksed Ali was his father and Late Rejia Khatun was his mother and his father’s name was recorded in the NRC of village- Barbala, Mouza- Bhabanipur in the district of Barpeta and thereafter, his father had shifted to Kaljhar village, Mouza- Betbari, PS- Howly in the district of Barpeta. His father died in the year 1973 due to Cholera. Then, after giving up all relation with petitioner’s father, his mother along with the petitioner’s brother Rezzak Talukdar came to the house of his maternal grandfather’s house at village- Bilortari, Mouza- Rupsi, PS- Kalgachia in the district of Barpeta. The name of his maternal grandfather was Late Kalim Uddin @ Kalimuddin. The petitioner claims that Late Naimuddin was his maternal forefather. Thereafter, the petitioner was born in the year 1973 at village- Bilortari, Mouza- Rupsi, PS- Kalgachia in the district of Barpeta. 7. The petitioner claims that his father had mental disorder and accordingly, his name was not recorded in the voter list of 1966, 1970 and 1973. The petitioner claims that Late Ahadulla was his grandfather and Late Jamela Khatun was his grandmother. He does not have any paternal uncle or aunt or sister. Late Jaleman Nessa is his maternal grandmother. Nur Islam @ Nur Islam Talukdar is his maternal uncle, whose name along with his wife Majeda Khatun and the name of his mother appeared in the voter list of 1985. Late Jabeda Khatun, Samatan Nessa and Late Kariman Nessa were his three maternal aunts, whose name appeared in the voter list of 1966, 1970. The petitioner has stated that the name of his maternal uncle, maternal uncle’s wife, petitioner’s mother, the name of maternal cousin, maternal cousin’s wife appeared in the voter list of 1989. The petitioner has also stated that the correct name of his maternal uncle is Nur Islam Talukdar, but his name was wrongly recorded as Nurul Islam, Nur Page No.# 5/15 Islam and Nurul Islam Talu instead of Nur Islam Talukdar in the voter list of 1985, 1989 and 1993 respectively, who are all one and same person. 8. The petitioner has stated that the name of his father, Moksed Ali’s name was recorded in the revenue receipt of village- Kaljhar, showing that his father paid revenue in Bengali Year 1371/72 and 73 on 24 Magh, 1374. It is also stated that the name of Nur Islam @ Nur Islam Talukdar, his maternal uncle, name of Rajia Khatun, petitioner’s mother and the name of Rezzak Talukdar, petitioner’s brother, and petitioners own name appeared in the jamabandi in respect of land covered by Patta No.46. It was also stated that the name of his mother was struck out after death and it is also stated that other persons are not the member of the petitioner’s family. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner, his wife- Rehena Khatun, son- Rajibul Islam, daughter- Abida Khatun, sons- Rajadul Islam and Ekramul Hoque and daughter- Absana Khatun appeared in a report showing village wise ration cards with family members details. The name of the petitioner, showing his father’s name, also appeared in the Income Tax PAN Card, showing his date of birth as 06.05.1973. The petitioner was issued a Gaonbura certificate towards his linkage with his father and mother. The petitioner states that the name of his father appeared in the NRC of village- Borbala and the name of his mother appeared in the NRC of village- Bilortari. His maternal grandfather’s name appeared as Kalim in NRC details. The petitioner has also explained the discrepancies in the name and age in various voter lists. 9. It would be relevant to extract the oral deposition of the petitioner as DW-1, which is quoted below: “That I was born at village Bilartari in the year 1973 but I do not know the exact date Page No.# 6/15 of my birth. Ahadulla is my grand father But I can not remember the name of my grandmother at this moment. My father's name has been found recorded in the legacy data of 1951 N.R.C. Kalimuddin Talukdar and Jeleman Nessa were my maternal grandparents My maternal grandmother is a registered voter in the voter list of the year 1966 and 1970. I have one maternal uncle and three maternal aunts. My maternal uncle's name is Nur Islam Talukdar and my maternal aunts are Jabeda Khatun, Samartan Khatun, Kariman Nessa. My mother did cast her vote together with my Maternal uncle in the year 1985. I have been marked as \"D\" voter in the year 1997. Razzak Ali is my elder brother and he is also residing at village Bilartari. XXX I have not submitted any voters list pertain to my father and grandparents. It is not a fact that I have failed to establish linkage with my mother as well. It is not a fact that I came to Assam from Bangladesh after 25th March 1971.” 10. It would also be relevant to extract the oral deposition of the DW-2, namely, Nur Islam Talukdar, which is quoted below: “That O.P. was born at village Bilartari, but I do not know his date of birth, who is my nephew and he is the son of my sister Rejia. Late Moksed Ali S/O not known resident of village Borbala is the father of the O.P. O.P's mother did cast her vote together with me but I can not remember the year of casting votes. O.P. did not cast his vote together with his mother and me. O.P. had inherited a plot of land from his mother Rejia Khatun, which she inherited from my father after the death of our father but I do not know its Dag and Patta Numbers. O.P. is an Indian citizen by birth. XXX O.P. has submitted voters list and other documents pertains to his father and grand parents. It is not a fact that the O.P. is not a son of Moksed Ali. It is not a fact that O.P.'s mother Rejia is not the wife of Moksed Ali. Page No.# 7/15 It is not a fact that the O.P. came to India from Bangladesh after 25th March 1971.” 11. As per the records of the learned Tribunal, specifically from the oral deposition of DW-1 and DW-2 recorded on 10.02.2021, although no documents were exhibited by the petitioner, the following documents in the record are found marked as exhibits, viz., (1) certified copy of electoral roll of 1966 (Ext.1); (2) certified copy of electoral roll of 1970 (Ext.2); (3) certified copy of electoral roll of 1985 (Ext.3); (4) certified copy of electoral roll of 1989 (Ext.4); (5) certified copy of electoral roll of 1993 (Ext.5); (6) certified copy of electoral roll of 1997 (Ext.6); (7) certified copy of electoral roll of 2008 (Ext.7); (8) Revenue paid receipt (Ext.8); (9) Computer generated copy of jamabandi in respect of patta no.46, dag nos.17,20 & 21 of village-Besimari in the district of Barpeta (Ext.9) showing land mutated in the name of Nur Islam @ Nur Islam Talukdar (Maternal Uncle), Rejia Khatun (Mother), Rezzak Talukdar (Brother) and Joynal Talukdar (Petitioner) (Ext.9); (10) Certificate issued by Nurul Islam, Govt. Gaonburha (Ext.10), stating therein that Md. Joynal Talukdar is a resident of Bilotari village under Rupshi Mouza and that is his name was included in the 1997 voters list of the said village. However, none of these documents are referred to in the examination-in-chief as exhibits. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence on record was not examined or considered by the Tribunal in its proper perspective. It was submitted that all documentary evidence was rejected on flimsy grounds. More importantly the name of the father of the petitioner appeared in the land owner’s receipt of the year 1967-68 on the ground that it was private document. It was also submitted that while examining the evidence of DW-2, the learned Tribunal had not considered the provision of Section 50 of Page No.# 8/15 the Evidence Act, 1872. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Uttam Ghosh Vs. The Union of India and Ors., WP(C) 93/2022, Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1, Idrish Ali Vs. Union of India WP(C) 4116/2019. 13. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters has submitted that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to link himself to his projected parents and as per the contents of the exhibited documents specifically the Electoral rolls and the Jamabandi, the petitioner is seeking to establish his citizenship by drawing his lineage through his mother, maternal grandfather and maternal uncle. 14. Examined the materials available on record including those available in the Tribunal’s record. Considered the submissions as well as the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Local Verification Officer (LVO for short) conducted the enquiry perfunctorily and left most of the columns of the report blank. Accordingly, it was submitted that the grounds of suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner was not provided to the petitioner. 16. In the present case in hand, the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer, on receipt of the LVO Report forwarded the reference vide “Annexure-B” to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police (Border), who is the prescribed authority to make reference before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal [IM(D)T for short], constituted under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and Rules framed thereunder. Page No.# 9/15 Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, forwarded the reference and records of IM(D)T Doubtful Case No. 5391(A) dt. 3/8 to the Chairman of the erstwhile IM(D)T, Barpeta. 17. In this regard, it may be mentioned that there is an important facet, which is contained in the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 456, which must be referred to. We are in respectful agreement with the said judgment and therefore, paragraphs 11 to 22 thereof are quoted below:- 11. In the year 1997, Election Commission of India had undertaken an intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam as apprehensions were expressed from various quarters that the electoral rolls were infested with the names of foreigners/illegal migrants. In the course of this exercise citizenship status of as many as 3,13,046 persons whose names were in the draft voters lists were found to be doubtful and accordingly they were marked as doubtful “D” voters in the electoral rolls after local verification. 12. Legality of this exercise was challenged before this Court in HRA Choudhury Vs Election Commission of India, reported in 2002 (1) GLT 1. The challenge made was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. In HRA Choudhury (supra) this Court examined the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 of the Election Commission of India laying down the procedure to carry out the exercise. 12.1. As per paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines the Electoral Registration Officer was required to consider the verification report received from the Local Verification Officer. If he was satisfied on such report and such other material/information as may be available about the eligibility of a person, he should allow his name to continue on the electoral roll. Where, however, he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, he was required to refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 as the case may be. For convenience of the Electoral Registration Officers, Election Commission devised proformas. 12.2. As per paragraph 3.9, after the case of a person was referred by the Electoral Registration Officer to the competent authority, he should wait for the decision of the relevant Tribunal in relation to that person and act according to such decision. Page No.# 10/15 12.3. As per paragraph 3.10, where the relevant Tribunal decided that any such person was not a citizen of India, Electoral Registration Officer should proceed under Rule 21 A of the Registration of Electors Rolls, 1960 to have the name of such person deleted from the electoral roll before it was finally published. 12.4. This Court in HRA Choudhury (supra) held that such guidelines and decision of the Election Commission were in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution of India besides conforming to the principles of natural justice. It was held that such guidelines cannot be held to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or partiality. 13. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 is no longer in existence, the same having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665. Therefore, in so far paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 is concerned, the reference would be under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 14. The above exercise was repeated in the year 2005 with the Election Commission of India again going for intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam taking 01.01.2005 as the qualifying date. In this connection, guidelines dated 17.06.2004 were issued by the Election Commission of India. Paragraph 2.2 of the guidelines dealt with “D” voters. It was mentioned that the guidelines issued in 1997 would be followed while dealing with such category of persons. Paragraph 8 dealt with verification by Electoral Registration Officers. It laid down the procedure while carrying out such verification including verification by Local Verification Officer. As per paragraph 8.6, Local Verification Officer would conduct the verification by making an on the spot visit and the person concerned could adduce any one or more of the documents mentioned therein in support of his claim as a citizen of India. After due verification, the Local Verification Officer was required to submit his report in the prescribed format. Under paragraph 8.8, Electoral Registration Officer on receipt of the verification report from the Local Verification Officer should consider the same. Where he was satisfied about the eligibility of a person, he should allow the name of such person to continue on the electoral roll but where he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person he should refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 in a prepared format (Annexure-B to the guidelines dated 17.06.2004) to the competent authority for making reference to the Tribunal and await the decision of such Tribunal. 15. As pointed out by Mr. Barua, in Mameja Khatun (supra) a Single Bench of Page No.# 11/15 this Court directed that “D” voters should not be allowed to cast their votes with the clarification that “D” voters would include persons whose names were included in the electoral rolls but their citizenship was doubted or disputed and also those whose cases were pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. This decision of the learned Single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 114/2011 (State Vs Mameja Khatun). By the judgment and order dated 13.10.2015, the Division Bench directed Election Commission of India and other authorities to implement the directions of the Single Bench in letter and spirit. 16. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that in WP(C) No. 274/2009 filed by Assam Public Works which is pending before the Supreme Court of India wherein NRC updation exercise in the State of Assam is being monitored by the Supreme Court of India, on 25.10.2013, Supreme Court clarified that as far as persons in the “D” list are concerned, undoubtedly they were doubtful voters and therefore their names could not be included unless the NRC is updated and unless the Foreigners Tribunals declared them to be Indian citizens. 17. The Foreigners Act, 1946 is an act to confer upon the Central Government certain powers in respect of foreigners. This Act provides for the exercise of certain powers by the Central Government in respect of the entry of foreigners into India; their presence in India and their departure therefrom. Section 2 (a) defines a “foreigner” to mean a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 3 confers power to the Central Government to make orders making provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or their continued presence therein. 17.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Central Government made the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. As per order 2 (1), the Central Government may by order refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to a Tribunal to be constituted for the purpose for its opinion. 18. Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India had issued notification dated 19.04.1958 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-(1) of Article 258 of the Constitution of India whereby the President with the consent of the State Government concerned entrusted to the Governments of each of the States mentioned therein including the State of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Another notification dated 17.02.1976 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 258 (1) of the Constitution entrusting the Superintendents of Police and Deputy Page No.# 12/15 Commissioners (In-charge of Police) under the Government of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 within their respective jurisdictions subject to the conditions mentioned therein which included the condition that exercise of such functions would be in respect of nationals of Bangladesh and that while exercising such functions, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) shall comply with such general or special directions as the Government of Assam or the Central Government may issue from time to time. 19. Article 258 of the Constitution deals with power of the Union to confer powers etc on States in certain cases. Clause (1) of Article 258 starts with a non- obstante clause. It says that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. Clause (3) provides for making of payment by the Government of India to the State concerned such sum as may be agreed upon or in default of agreement through arbitration in respect of any extra-cost of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of powers and duties of the Government of India conferred or imposed upon a State Government. 20. Thus, under the Central Government notifications dated 19.04.1958 and 17.02.1976, Government of Assam, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (Incharge of Police) have been delegated the power to make reference to the Foreigners Tribunal under order 2 (1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to seek opinion as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 21. Thus from the above, what transpires is that there are two categories of “D” voters:- (i). those who were marked as “D” voters in the electoral roll by the Electoral Registration Officer following enquiry by Local Verification Officer; and (ii). those whose references are pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. 22. In so far Electoral Registration Officer is concerned the exercise undertaken by him while marking a person as a “D” voter in the electoral roll is a quasi judicial exercise. If he holds the view after examining the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer that the concerned person is not a citizen of India he is required to forward the case of that person to the competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police. If it is so forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police has to make a reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunals under order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 based on the report received from the Electoral Registration Officer. Question of making further enquiry by the Superintendent of Police in such a case Page No.# 13/15 would not arise because enquiry has already been made by the Electoral Registration Officer by exercising quasi judicial powers and the Superintendent of Police cannot sit over such decision of the Electoral Registration Officer. He has to forward the same by making the reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunal for its opinion. 18. The said judgment by the learned Single Judge has stood affirmed by virtue of judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019. 19. Although none of the documents are found to have been exhibited by the petitioner in his evidence and/ or examination-in-chief, but the learned Tribunal had marked hereinbefore 10 (ten) documents as exhibits. Therefore, those exhibits have been considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show from any of the exhibited Electoral Rolls, being exhibit nos.1 to 7 that it contains the name of the father or grandfather of the petitioner. It also could not been shown that any of those exhibited Electoral Roll contained the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to show from the Electoral Rolls that the petitioner’s father or grandfather or the petitioner himself was a voter in India or they could establish his lineage from his projected father or grandfather who had not only resided in India prior to 01.01.1966 or before 25.03.1971 and were ordinary residents in the State of Assam as per the requirement of Section 6A (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 20. The landlord’s receipt (Ext.8) was purportedly issued by some person who was not the landlord, which can be gathered from illegible signature of the person issuing the money receipt with the name of the land owner printed in the same receipt. It may be stated that in the past the present district of Page No.# 14/15 Barpeta fell within the erstwhile Goalpara district and Goalpara Tenancy Act, 1929 prevailed then. However, the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951 (Assam Act XVIII of 1951) was enacted and the Zamindari system was abolished. As per the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph no. 11 of the Writ Petition, Bengali year 1374, when the receipt was issued corresponds to Gregorian Calendar 1967-68. Under such circumstances contrary to claim made by the petitioner that the said land owner’s receipt was issued by Revenue authority, as claimed in paragraph no.19 of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that Ext.8 was issued by any land revenue authority of the State of Assam. As per the entries contained in the Jamabandi (Ext.9), one Nur Islam projected maternal uncle of the petitioner have purchased a part of the patta land and the name of Nur Islam was mutated vide order dated 14.10.1982 and the name of the mother of the petitioner was mutated in place of said Nur Islam vide order dated 20.10.1995. Therefore, the entries in respect of the petitioner’s projected mother in the said Jamabandi (Ext.9) have not helped the petitioner. The Gaonburha certificate (Ext.10) also does not help the petitioner as the status of the petitioner as “D” voter in the Electoral Roll of 1997 does not lead to presumption that the petitioner is a citizen of India. 21. That Nur Islam Talukdar who was examined as DW-2 also did not exhibit any document regarding the presence of the projected father of the petitioner so as to establish the continuous stay of the projected father of the petitioner prior to 25.03.1971. Therefore, none of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are found to help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Page No.# 15/15 22. In light of the discussion above, the Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner has not been able to prove that his father was a citizen of India or had entered into India (Assam) prior to 01.01.1966 or between 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 and that as per the requirement of Section 6A (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1951, his father was ordinary resident in the State of Assam. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that he would be able to claim citizenship through his maternal grandfather or maternal uncle. 23. Resultantly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, no interference is called for in respect of opinion dated dated 25.03.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Barpeta 11th, in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 1536/2017. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant "