Mazeda Khatun V. Union of India and Election Commission of India and State of Assam and State Coordinator NRC and Deputy Commissioner Darrang and Superintendent of Police(B) Darrang and Officer in Charge Shyampur Police Station

Review.Pet./28/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Mazeda Khatun, who filed a review petition against the order of the Gauhati High Court concerning her citizenship status as per the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. The review challenged the earlier decision which had not accepted her documents and certificates as sufficient proof of her lineage to establish citizenship. The petitioner argued that her name and her siblings' names were recorded in the Draft NRC of 2018 and presented various documents to support her claim. However, the court found inconsistencies in the testimonies and documents provided, leading to the dismissal of the review petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800758 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP(C)/3747/2019, WP(C) No. 5158/2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ASSTT S G I
• Assessee Lawyers: M U MAHMUD
• Keywords: Citizenship; Linkage; NRC; Review petition; Lineage Certificate

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010016542020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./28/2020 MAZEDA KHATUN D/O- APSAR ALI @ ASAR ALI AND SAFARA KHATUN, W/O- SAHAR ALI, R/O- VILL- KHERONI CHAPARI, P.S- SHYAMPUR, P.O- DOLGAON, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784514. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 01 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 01 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC BHANGAGARH ASSAM GHY- 5 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) DARRANG DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SHYAMPUR POLICE STATION DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 78451 Advocate for the Petitioner : Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I. Linked Case : WP(C)/3747/2019 MAZEDA KHATUN D/O- APSAR ALI @ ASAR ALI AND SAFARA KHATUN W/O- SAHAR ALI R/O- VILL- KHERONI CHAPARI P.S- SHYAMPUR P.O- DOLGAON DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784514 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI- 01 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 01 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT Page No.# 3/5 DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC BHANGAGARH ASSAM GHY- 5 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) DARRANG DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SHYAMPUR POLICE STATION DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784514 ------------ Advocate for : MR. M U MAHMUD Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR ORDER 08.04.2021. (P.K.Deka.J) Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7, Mr. A. I. Ali, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. L. Devi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Order dated 25.06.2019 passed in WP(C)/3747/2019 by this court is put under challenge in this review application. The grounds for the said review though about eight in numbers however, the relevant grounds are extracted hereinabelow:- Page No.# 4/5 “(i) For that the Hon’ble Court has not considered her PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department, Panchayat certificate, which was counter signed by the B.D.O. of Arimari as linkage, which are here linkage with her father, bearing annexure No. 6 & 7 due to not proving the same by the author of the certificate. (iii) For that the petitioner’s own name and her own brothers’ and sisters’ names have been recorded in the Draft NRC of 2018 and may other documents in her own name. She has also annexed a linkage certificate in this review petition, issued by the Secretary of Arimari Gaon Panchayat, counter signed by the B.D.O. of that area, dated 14.08.2018, vide Annexure-7 of the writ petition. Recently, in a reference case, this Hon’ble Court has remanded back to the Tribunal to prove the petitioner’s nationality by adducing any further evidences to show the petitioner is the daughter of Abdul Jalil, vide judgment and order (ORAL), dated 20.02.19 in WP(C) No. 5158/2018. So, if a chance is given to the petitioner, then she can prove her citizenship by adducing other evidence like her brothers Abdur Rahman, Rahman Ali Abul Kashem, Kitap Ali, who are the songs of Apsar Ali. (v) For That this Hon’ble High court being a court of record, has inherent power to review its own order more particularly when there are crucial developments. In the present case the names of the petitioner’s own brothers and sisters have been recorded in the updated NRC in Assam after thorough verification by the authorities. So, this matter is a cogent and positive ground in favour of the petitioner that she is also a citizen of India, not a foreigner. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also given the petitioner liberty to file review petition seeking appropriate order in this regard by order, dated 09.12.2019, passed in SLP No. 9329/2019”. In support of the said grounds Mr. Mahmud took us to the opinion of the learned Tribunal passed in F.T. 4th/416/2015. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record inasmuch as there was a linkage certificate issued by the competent Gaonburha who deposed his evidence as DW-3. As per the said linkage certificate the petitioner could establish her lineage from her projected father, Apsar Ali On a specific query to Mr. Mahmud in respect of the finding of the Tribunal that the brother of the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence in order to prove that he is the son of Lt. Afsar Ali, the projected father of the petitioner Mr. Mahmud admitted the same. Mr. Mahmud relying the draft NRC, 2018 submits that name of projected father of the petitioner was recorded as Apsar Ali and petitioner’s own name also appeared in the said NRC. We have given due consideration to the submission of Mr. Mahmud. Also perused the Page No.# 5/5 impugned order. This court while passing the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 took note of the finding of the Tribunal that the DW-2, Rahman Ali failed to establish his link with the projected parents of the petitioner in order to prove his claim that he is the brother of the petitioner. The evidence of the DW-3 the Gaonburah was disbelieved by this court on the ground that there were contradictions in respect of the factual matrix pleaded by the petitioner in her written statement and the oral deposition of the Gaonburah. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to convince this court the main ingredient for exercising the review jurisdiction regarding any error which is apparent on the face of the order passed by this court. In order to support his contention Mr. Mahmud relied a decision of this court by a Coordinate Bench dated 20.02.2019 in WP(C)/5158/2018 wherein the opinion passed by the learned Tribunal was put under challenge and the matter was remanded granting liberty to the petitioner therein to adduce further evidence to establish her link with her father. But the said order dated 20.02.2019 was not passed while exercising the jurisdiction of review. Moreover, the factual matrix of the said order dated 20.02.2019 passed in WP(C)/5158/2018 can very well be distinguished inasmuch as one of the witnesses therein was able to establish the linkage with the projected father of the petitioner. But in the present case in hand the said brother, DW-2 of the petitioner failed to establish linkage with the projected father of the petitioner which is admitted by Mr. Mahmud himself. Further another contention of Mr. Mahmud that this review petition is filed as per direction of the Apex Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as Mr. Payeng submitted, which he rightly did so that the SLP No. 9329/2019 which was preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn with a liberty to apply for review before this court. There was no specific direction by the Apex Court to consider the review application filed by the petitioner. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in this review petition which stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant "