Musstt. Rupban Bibi @ Rupbanu Begum W/O- Ohed Ali V. The Union of India and The Election Commission of India and The State of Assam and The National Register of Citizens and The Dy. Commissioner Kamrup and The Member Foreigners Tribunal 5th Kamrup and The Superintendent of Police (B) Kamrup

WP(C)/2528/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Musstt. Rupban Bibi @ Rupbanu Begum, who challenged the order of the Foreigners Tribunal, 5th Rangia, Kamrup, which declared her a foreigner of post-1971 stream. The Tribunal's decision was based on the petitioner's inability to prove her Indian citizenship despite presenting various documents and testimonies. The High Court of Gauhati reviewed the Tribunal's decision and the evidence presented, including voter lists and certificates from local officials, but found the evidence insufficient to establish the petitioner's linkage with her parents. The court emphasized the need for documentary evidence in such cases and upheld the Tribunal's finding.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695859 (HC-ASSAM NAGALAND MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Das v. Union of India [WP(C) No. 562/2016], Babul Islam v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 3547 of 2016], Gulbhan Begum v. Union of India [WP(C) 583/2017]
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ASSTT S G I
• Assessee Lawyers: A PAUL
• Keywords: Citizenship; Foreigner; Foreigners tribunal; Post 1971 stream; Linkage establishment
• Section: 1946

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010084922020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C) 2528/2020 1:MUSSTT. RUPBAN BIBI @ RUPBANU BEGUM W/O- OHED ALI, R/O- ISSAPUR, P.S. RANGIA, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781376 VERSUS 1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS REP. BY THE STATE COORDINATOR ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GHY-05 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP DIST.- KAMRUP (R) Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM PIN- 781031 6:THE MEMBER FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL 5TH KAMRUP RANGIA DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781354 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) KAMRUP P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 23-06-2020 (P. Saikia) Heard the learned counsel Mr. A. Paul, appearing for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, FT and Standing Counsel, Border Police, Assam, Ms. G. Hazarkia, learned Central Govt. Counsel for the Union of India as well as the NRC Coordinator and Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, 5th Rangia, Kamrup in R.F.T. Case No. 436(R)/2016. By the impugned opinion the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post Page No.# 3/6 1971 stream. On the basis of a reference made by the competent authority, the Tribunal issued Notice to the petitioner asking her to prove her Indian Citizenship. She appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written statement. The petitioner claimed that she was born in the year 1977 to Late Amiruddin and Kamala Khatun at Khopanikuchi in the district of Kamrup, Assam. The grand-father of the petitioner is Maniruddin. In the year 1993, the petitioner was married to Md. Ohed Ali of village Issapur and since that year she has been casting her vote with her husband. While adducing evidence, the petitioner filed some documents. The documents are as under: i. Exhibit-1 is the registered Sale Deed executed and registered on 26.09.1968 by which grand-father Maniruddin purchased land in the village Khopanikuchi. ii. Exhibit-2 is the voter list of 1979 containing the names of Amiruddin and Kamala Khatun. iii. Exhibit-3 is the voter list of 1989 containing the names of Amiruddin and Kamala Khatun. iv. Exhibit-4 is the voter list of 1997 containing the names of Amiruddin and Kamala Khatun. v. Exhibit-5 is the voter list of 1997 containing the names of petitioner and her husband. vi. Exhibit-6 is the voter list of 2016 containing the names of petitioner and her husband. vii. Exhibit-7 is the voter list of 2019 containing the names of petitioner and her husband. viii. Exhibit-8 is the EPIC of the petitioner. ix. Exhibit-9 is the Pan Card of the petitioner. x. Exhibit-10 is the certificate issued by Secretary, Bissennala Gaon Panchayat. Page No.# 4/6 xi. Exhibit-11 is the certificate issued by Government Gaonbura of Khopanikuchi. xii. Exhibit-12 is the EPIC of Md. Ohed Ali. xiii. Exhibit-13 is the Identity Card of Shri Aribanda Das, the Government Gaonbura. xiv. Exhibit-14 is the voter list of the year 1979 containing the names of Maniruddin Ali and Mulkat Nessa. The petitioner examined herself along with her husband Md. Ohed Ali and the Government Gaonbura Arabinda Das. On the basis of the evidence available on the record, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish her linkage with her projected parents and therefore declared her to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream. We have gone through the opinion of the Tribunal. For the matter in hand there may not be any dispute that Amiruddin and Kamala Khatun are the projected parents of the petitioner. But the moot point here is as to whether the petitioner had succeeded in establishing her linkage with her projected parents. For that matter the petitioner relied upon the certificate issued by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and the Government Gaonbura. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat was not examined by the petitioner. Therefore, Exhibit- 10 remained not proved. For Exhibit-11, the certificate of the Government Gaonbura, the petitioner examined the Government Gaobura Aribinda Das as DW-3. The DW-3 stated in his evidence that he was the Government appointed Gaonbura of the village Issapur, Jaljali and Khopanikuchi. Dw-3 is aged 56 years. He further stated in his evidence that since the year 1996 he was maintaining a register of birth and death for the people residing within his jurisdiction. DW-3 did not bring the register to the Tribunal at the time of adducing evidence. DW-3 stated that he could not say exactly how many years ago the grand-father and the parents of the petitioner died. The DW-3 also stated in his evidence that when he was about 8 years old, the family of the petitioner had migrated from Nagaon to the village Khopanikuchi. Page No.# 5/6 Now the question arises as to whether the evidence of DW-3 can be held to be sacrosanct. This Court in Vijay Das v. Union of India [WP(C) No. 562/2016] has already held that in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946, oral evidence is not enough and there must be documentary evidence. Therefore the evidence of DW-3 pertaining to his claim of death of the parents and grand-father of the petitioner remained not proved. The DW-3 has further stated in his evidence that he had heard from the petitioner that she was married in the year 1993. We find that the DW-3 Arabinda Das never stated in his evidence that the petitioner was married to Md. Ohed Ali of Issapur. He only heard from the petitioner that she was married in the year 1993. We find that the evidence of the DW-3 Arabinda Das failed to inspire confidence. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal had correctly disregarded the evidence of DW-3 and held that the petitioner failed to establish her linkage with her projected parents. So far as the Ext.-9, Pan Card is concerned, this Court in Babul Islam v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 3547 of 2016] has already held that an Income Tax Pan Card cannot be straightway accepted as evidence, because its genuineness must be proved by the evidence of Income Tax Authority. No such evidence was adduced in the case in hand. Prior to Babul Islam (supra) this Court in Gulbhan Begum v. Union of India [WP(C) 583/2017] held a similar view holding that it must be proved that the petitioner had applied for a Pan card and the Income Tax Department had issued such a Pan Card to the applicant. Therefore the Pan Card i.e. Ext-9 cannot be accepted for establishing the linkage between the petitioner and her parents. The net result of all these is that the petitioner simply failed to establish her linkage with her parents by adducing evidence. We are in agreement that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding. As a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we excise supervisory power. We are not required to interfere with findings of facts. Inspite of that we have gone through the evidence just to assure ourselves that there is no perversity in opinion of the tribunal. We could not find any perversity in the impugned opinion. Therefore Page No.# 6/6 we refuse to interfere into the impugned opinion. We do not find merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. The case record shall be returned forthwith. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant "