Remanded

Abdul Awal @ Ayub Ali v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Jun 2022WP(C)/2261/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not considering land revenue documents submitted by the petitioner, which could alter the citizenship issue, and remanded the matter for a fresh appraisal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order of the Foreigners Tribunal is set aside and the matter remanded for re-appreciation of evidence.

Abdul Awal @ Ayub Ali Vs the Union of India and 7… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010044872020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2261/2020

¶5

ABDUL AWAL @ AYUB ALI

¶6

S/O LT. FALU MOLLAH, R/O VILL. AIRONJONGLA PART-III(NEWGHAT), P.S. DHUBRI, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783301

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

¶10

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001

¶11

4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781005

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 6:THE FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL NO. 1 DHUBRI ASSAM DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DHUBRI ASSAM DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 8:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE DHUBRI POLICE STATION P.O. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶16

B E F O R E

¶17

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA O R D E R

¶18

06.06.2022

¶19

[N. Kotiswar Singh, (C.J. (Acting)]

¶20

Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI; Mr. G. Sharma, learned Special Counsel, FT; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India; Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned counsel for the NRC.

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

2 . In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dhubri in FT Case No.2249/D/2010 by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

¶23

3 . It is the case of the petitioner that after receiving notice from the Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal, filed written statement and produced a number of documents including Final Khatian (Ext.J) and Periodic Khiraj Patta (Ext.K). However, the Tribunal, while discussing the evidence, did not refer to the relevancy of the said two exhibits. It is submitted that in Ext.J, i.e., the Final Khatian, the name of the petitioner’s grandfather is clearly mentioned, which can be traced to 1962. Similarly, in respect of the Periodic Khiraj Patta, the petitioner’s grandfather had been paying land revenue since 1961. Accordingly, it has been submitted that these two vital documents would have linked the petitioner with his grandfather in which event the petitioner cannot be stated to be a foreigner as his grandfather had been living in the State of Assam since 1951. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not consider the said two very relevant documents, though it relied upon the other documents while appreciating the evidences on record.

¶24

4. We are of the view that in matters like establishing citizenship of a person, a single document may not be sufficient to establish the citizenship but all the documents taken together could indicate the citizenship status of a person. In the present case, since the other documents were not considered along with Ext. J and Ext.K, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal is vitiated on the ground of non-consideration of relevant documents/evidences on record.

¶25

5. We are also of the view that the aforesaid two documents may have the potential of changing the colours and contours of the other evidences on record and, as such, all these documents ought to have been considered together and collectively before coming to the conclusion as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner.

¶26

6. Learned Special Counsel, FT has also acknowledged that the aforesaid two documents, i.e., Ext. J and Ext. K were not considered by the Tribunal before arriving at its own conclusion, which is put under challenge before this Court.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

7. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Tribunal had erred in not considering the aforesaid two vital documents, which were required to be considered along with the other documents. As such, without going into the merit on the reliability and admissibility of the documents, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for re-appreciation of the evidences and the Tribunal, after appreciating all the evidences in a holistic manner, will pass a fresh order as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner.

¶29

8 . Accordingly, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dhubri in FT Case No.2249/D/2010dated 31.08.2021.

¶30

9. The petitioner will appear before the Tribunal on or before 20.07.2022. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal will render a fresh opinion as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner.

¶31

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be able to establish that the authorities had not made any specific allegation that the petitioner had come from the specified territory and, as such, the petitioner may be allowed to raise this issue before the Tribunal. The petitioner may do so and the Tribunal shall consider this aspect also at the time of giving its opinion.

¶32

11. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.

¶33

12. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Awal @ Ayub Ali v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Awal @ Ayub Ali v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukkur Ali and 7 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Anis Ali @ Anish Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sahidulla @ Md. Julhas Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Abdul Karim Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Kulsam Nessa @ Musstt. Kalsum Begum Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Md. Arkim Ali @ Arakim Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.