Asma Begum Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, F.T and Border matters, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for ECI, Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for the Union of India and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate, Assam for the State.

¶29

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 22.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No. 7^th at Lanka, Nagaon, in F.T./L/Case No. 288/2015, arising out of SPs. Case No. 530/2014, thereby declaring the petitioner as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

¶30

3. The petitioner, on receipt of notice of proceedings, appeared before the learned Tribunal and file her written statement, inter alia, stating that the case was not maintainable and there was no cause of action and that the suit is barred by law of Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 and Foreigners Act, 1946 and that the case against the petitioner was false, fabricated and vague and the Investigating Officer never visited the spot and had not verified the original

¶31

Page No.# 3/7

¶32

document and the case was filed to feed the grudge and enmity. The petitioner contended that the name of his father was enlisted in the voters list of 1966 and 1970 under 94 Lumding LAC and the name of the petitioner was enlisted in the voters list of 1989 and 2014 under 91 Hojai LAC. The petitioner claims to have landed property covered by Periodic Patta No. 24, Dag No. 354 of Samboria Kissam and the Government Gaonburah of Dablong has issued a certificate in favor of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has stated that she be declared as a citizen of India and not a foreigner.

¶33

4. In support of her defence, the petitioner had examined herself as DW-1, wherein, she has reiterated the statement made in her written statement and she had marked the following documents as Exhibits, viz., voters list of 1966 (Ext.1), voters list of 1970 (Ext.2), both showing the name of the grandfather of the petitioner as Akram Ali; Voters list of 1989 (Ext.3) containing her name; voters list of 2015 (Ext.4), wherein against her name there was a mark of ‘D’, the certificate issued by the Government Gaonburah of Samboria village (Ext.5); school certificate showing that she was a student of Parasuram Mazumdar Girl’s High School in the year 1990 (Ext.6); certificate issued by the Secretary, Laskar Pather Gaon Panchayat (Ext.7); and the other documents were exhibited as (Ext. 8).

¶34

5. In support of her defence, the petitioner has also examined one Roisul Hoque, son of Ator Ali as DW-2, who claimed to be a citizen of India by birth and further stating that the documents submitted and exhibited by the petitioner were correct and genuine and was conversant with the same and stated that the petitioner was a bonafide citizen of India by birth having sufficient documents in support of her Indian nationality. However, on perusal of the documents on records, it appears that the petitioner was asked questions by the learned Tribunal and such examination is recorded in the back page of page Nos. 2 & 3 of the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner/DW-1 wherein, the learned Tribunal had recorded the documents exhibited as follows:-

¶35

(1) Certified copy of the voters list of 1966 (Ext.1).

¶36

(2) Certified copy of voters list of 1970 (Ext.2) showing the name of the father of the petitioner as Akram Ali s/o Aako Miyan and her mother’s name as Sundar Nesa under 94

¶37

Page No.# 4/7

¶38

No. Lumding LAC.

¶39

(3) Certified copy of voters list of 1989 (Ext.3).

¶40

(4) Downloaded copy of NRC details (Ext.4) showing the name of the grandfather of the petitioner as Irbin Ali.

¶41

(5) School Certificate (Ext.5) showing the name of the petitioner’s father as Aktar Ali.

¶42

(6) Copy of Jamabandi (Ext.6), by which mutation was granted on 30.07.1996.

¶43

(7) Land revenue paying receipt (Ext.7) and (Ext.8)

¶44

(8) Certificate issued by Govt. Gaonburah (Ext.9) and Certificate issued by Secretary, Laskarpathar Gaon Panchayat (Ext.10)

¶45

(9) Elector Photo Identity Card of the petitioner (Ext.11)

¶46

(10) Petitioner’s affidavit sworn in support of her father’s name (Ext.12).

¶47

(11) Kabinama of marriage of the petitioner dated 11.03.1991 (Ext.13).

¶48

6. Upon consideration of the contents of the documents, the learned Tribunal found that the name of the father of the petitioner was recorded in Ext. 1 & 2 as Akram Ali, son of Aako Miyan and mother’s name as Sundar Nesa instead of Attor Ali as father and Aku Miyan as grandfather and mother’s name as Sundar Nesa instead of Foyrun Nessa, which was found contrary to the pleadings of the petitioner. Similarly, the name and age were noticed in the voters list of 1989 (Ext.3). In connection with Ext.3, the learned Tribunal has recorded that the petitioner had not mentioned anywhere regarding shifting of village from Sambaria to Lanka Gaon (East Part). Though the downloaded copy of the order was not valid documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal perused the contents of Ext. 4 only to mention in the impugned opinion that, as per the petitioner, the name of her grandfather was Aaku Miyan, but in the said Ext. 4, it was mentioned as Irbin Ali. Even there was discrepancy in the name of the father was noted in the School Certificate (Ext.5), where instead of Attor Ali, the name of the petitioner’s father is stated as Aktar Ali. The Jamabandi (Ext.6) was discarded on the ground that mutation was granted by order dated 30.07.1996 and therefore it was of recent origin. Accordingly, it was observed that Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8, being the land revenue pay receipts, do not help the petitioner.

¶49

7. The Certificate issued by the Gaonburah and the Secretary of the concerned Gaon

¶50

Page No.# 5/7

¶51

Panchayat, (Ext. 9 and Ext. 10) were discarded on the ground that the those documents were not proved in accordance with law. This would mean that the author of the certificates were not examined. The Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext.11) was held not sufficient to establish linkage with the documents of pre-cut-off dated 25.03.1971 and therefore, it was not proved for citizenship status of the petitioner. An affidavit (Ext.12) was discarded as the said affidavit has no evidentiary value. The Kabinama (Ext.13) was also discarded as it discloses marriage of the petitioner on 11.03.1991, which cannot be used for linkage of the petitioner unless the document is of pre-cut-off date. Resultantly, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream as she could not prove her linkage with the projected parents and grand-parents.

¶52

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the stand taken in the writ petition as well as in the additional affidavit filed on 25.06.2025 and submitted that the discrepancies in the name of the father of the petitioner and grandfather of the petitioner were not a good reason for the learned Tribunal to discard the evidence of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner had explained discrepancy in the name by exhibiting an affidavit sworn on 22.12.2015. Moreover, it was submitted that the name of the petitioner was mutated in respect of the land belonging to her father and that the PAN Card of the petitioner had disclosed the name of her father. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned opinion is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶53

9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the F.T and Border matters had submitted that though there is uniformity in the petitioner’s father and grandfather in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970, but thereafter, the next electoral roll is of the year 1999 where there is a change of the village of the father of the petitioner and more so, there is a distinctive change in the name of the father and grandfather of the petitioner. Moreover, it is submitted that there is discrepancy in the age. Accordingly, by referring to the contents of the NRC and the disclosures made in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel of the F.T and Border matters submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned opinion.

¶54

Page No.# 6/7

¶55

10. In this case, the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 25.06.2025, instead of coming to the aid of the petitioner is found to have demolished the case of the petitioner. In para-3 of the additional affidavit, the petitioner has stated on oath that her father has two (2) sons who are alive and discloses their names as Rezaul Haque and Ziaul Haque. Though DW-2 has disclosed his name as Roisul Hoque, son of Attor Ali, the said DW-2 has not made a positive statement that he is the brother of the petitioner. Moreover, as per para – 3 of the said additional affidavit, there is no reference to DW-2 as the son of Attor Ali. Therefore, in the absence of any disclosure in the evidence on affidavit of DW-2, disclosing his relationship with the petitioner, in view of the statement made in para – 3 of the said evidence on affidavit of DW-2 that he knows the petitioner, he needs to know on the conclusion that he is nowhere related to the petitioner. Therefore, as DW-2 is not stated to be the brother of the petitioner, his affidavit is of no value being an unrelated person. In the said para – 3 of the additional affidavit, the petitioner has stated on oath that his father had four (4) daughters, who are alive and their names are disclosed as Salma Begum, Muslima Begum, Rahima Begum and herself. However, in the Electoral Roll of 1999 (Ext.3), the name of the three daughters of the father of the petitioner are Halima, Asma and Salma. Therefore, there appears to be mismatch in the names of the daughters of her father, disclosed in para – 3 with the contents of the Electoral Roll of 1999. We also take note of the fact that in the voters list of 1999 (Ext.3), the names of the two brothers of the petitioner are not disclosed. In fact, there is no Electoral Roll or any other documents disclosing the names of the said two brothers of the petitioner or the existence of the two sisters namely, Muslima Begum and Rahima Begum.

¶56

11. Therefore, the statement made in the additional affidavit dislodged the petitioner from the very case which was set in her written statement. We also find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that, as per the contents of Ext. 4, which is the downloaded copy of the father of the petitioner, the name of the grandfather is not disclosed as Aaku Miyan or Akloo Mia or Akow Mia which are the names of the grandfather of the petitioner as disclosed in the affidavit (Ext.12), but the name of the grandfather of the petitioner is

¶57

Page No.# 7/7

¶58

recorded in Ext.4 as Irbin Ali. Similarly, in Ext.5, which is a School Certificate, the name of the father of the petitioner is recorded as Aktar Ali and not Attor Ali.

¶59

12. In respect of the entries made in the Jamabandi (Ext.6), the said entries are made on 30.07.1996, which is not a document of prior to 25.03.1971. Moreover, the certificates which was issued by the Govt. Gaonburah and Secretary, Laskarpathar Gaon Panchayat (Ext. 9 & 10) are not proved by the authors. The Kabinama (Ext. 13) disclosed marriage of the petitioner on 11.03.1991, has also not been proved according to the provision of Rule 51 of the Assam Moslem Marriages and Divorces Registration Rules, 1935, providing that if the production of a register is required, it shall be produced by the Moslem Registrar or other officer whom the District Registrar may depute for the purpose, who will be entitled to claim payment of his expenses like any other witness. The said authority was not examined as witness.

¶60

13. Resultantly, the land revenue paying records (Ext. 7 and Ext. 8) do not help the petitioner in any manner. Similarly, in view of the discrepancy in the name of the father of the petitioner and grandfather of the petitioner, the Court is of the considered view that the impugned opinion dated 22.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No. 7^th at Lanka, Nagaon is not found to be vitiated on any ground whatsoever.

¶61

14. Accordingly, the challenge to the said opinion fails. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

¶62

15. The Registry shall send back the records to the Tribunal along with a copy of this order, to be made a part of record by the said Tribunal. Consequences of the impugned opinion shall follow.

¶63

JUDGE JUDGE

¶64

Comparing Assistant

Asma Begum v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asma Begum v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milika Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Abdul Rahman Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sohoruddin (Chahuruddin) Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Musstt. Khaimola Bibi Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs No 115330082 Ex Rt/Gd Mustaque Ahmed

Musstt Khaimola Bibi Vs the Union of India and Ors.