Salimuddin Ali @ Salim Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010154322019

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:3433

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4744/2019

¶6

SALIMUDDIN ALI @ SALIM ALI S/O. LT. MASIRUDDIN @ HAJI MASIRUDDIN @ KAJI MASIRUDDIN, VILL. KARAKANI CHAPORI, P.O. GOROIMARI, P.S. BOGINODI, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶12

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRBACHAN SADAN ASHOK ROAD NEW DELHI-110001.

¶13

4:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC

¶14

ASSAM FIRST FLOOR ASCHYUT PLAZA G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005.

¶15

5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER

¶16

Page No.# 2/6

¶17

LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR PIN-781001.

¶18

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)

¶19

DIST. LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-781001

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DAS, MR. R AHMED

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

ORDER

09.03.2026

(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. P.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. N. Kalita on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

¶28

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 29.03.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal- II, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Lakhimpur F.T.- II Case No. 389/2007, arising out of DIST. No. 73/04, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of Post 25.03.1971 stream.

¶29

Page No.# 3/6

¶30

In view of the order which is proposed to be passed, the entire pleadings and the evidence available on record has not been referred to. It was suffice to mention that the Superintendent of Police (B), Lakhimpur, North Lakimpur had made a reference vide DIST. No. 73/04, on the basis of a police enquiry report, expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner had filed his written statement of defence and adduced evidence and along with his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has exhibited the following documents:- Gaonburha’s certificate (Ext-1), Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext-2), Voters list of 1966 (Ext-3), Voters list of 1970 (Ext4) and photocopy of jamabandi (Ext-5). On perusal of the Tribunal’s records, it is seen that the evidence-on-affidavit filed on 27.11.2018, the documents which are referred to as Exhibits are Gaonburha’s certificate (Ext-1), Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext-2), NRC of 1951(Ext-3), Voters list of 1966 [Ext-4(i) and 4(ii)], Voters list of 1970 [Ext-5(i) and 5(ii)] and jamabandi (Ext-6). It is noted that the learned Tribunal has put its signature to authenticate the Gaonburha’s certificate (Ext-1), Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext-2), Voters list of 1966 (Ext-3), Voters list of 1970 (Ext-4) and photocopy of jamabandi (Ext-5).

¶31

We also take note of the fact that on 13.12.2018, the petitioner was cross-examined by the Assistant Government pleader where only the foresaid five exhibits have been referred to. Therefore, it is seen that the NRC of 1951 was disputed by the learned Tribunal. However, through the department, the order sheet regarding the said document was not authenticated by the learned Member as an exhibit. Be that as it may, the copy of NRC which is available on record is made a printout of the image id. Therefore, the said document is otherwise inadmissible in evidence.

¶32

In the impugned opinion dated 29.03.2019, in sub-paragraph viii of

¶33

Page No.# 4/6

¶34

paragraph-5 of the said opinion, the learned Tribunal stated that the proceedee’s mother expired while the proceedee was about 18/19 years old and his father expired in the year 2014. The Proceedee’s father left 5 (five) sons and 3 (three) daughters. However, while discussing Ext-5, the learned Tribunal held that the proceedee had not disclosed the material facts about the names of his brothers and sisters, his grandparents, etc., and that the proceedee had not disclosed whether his parents were dead or alive by then. This part of the observation of the learned Tribunal appears contrary to the statement, made in paragraph 8 of the written statement where the petitioner clearly stated that his mother, Sahera Nessa expired when he was aged 18-19 years and his father, Masiruddin expired in the year 2014 at village-Khatakhuchi under Rupshi Mouza and Kalgachia Police Station in the District of Barpeta. Moreover, such statement has been recorded by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 5 (viii) of the impugned opinion.

¶35

The petitioner in his written statement has clearly stated that at the time of his death of his father, he left 5 (five) sons namely, (a) Md. Abdul Hamid, (b) Sultan Mohmmad, (c) Md. Alimuddin, (d) Opposite party, (e) Sona Ali, and 3 (three) daughters namely, (a) Musstt. Kanchon Mala, (b) Musstt. Saharbanu, (c) Musstt. Tosiron Nessa.

¶36

Accordingly, as the finding of the learned Tribunal appears to be contrary to the pleading, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is for the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal to set the records right by placing its findings on the basis of the pleadings and evidence available on record.

¶37

At this stage, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters submitted that in this case, the petitioner has not exhibited any voters list to show that he is a voter or to link himself with his projected parents and

¶38

Page No.# 5/6

¶39

siblings. It was also submitted that the name of the petitioner does not appear along with his siblings in any of the voters list. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioner has picked up two voters list of 1966 and 1970, making an attempt to link himself with his father on the basis of jamabandi. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not been able to show that he was a resident of the place where the land is situated. Moreover, it was submitted that the Gaonburha’s certificate (Ext-1) is inadmissible because of the use of the State emblem which makes it also inadmissible in evidence. Accordingly, it was submitted that except for the inadvertence on the part of the learned Member in recording that the petitioner has not disclosed about his brothers and sisters or that the petitioner has not disclosed whether his parents are alive or dead, the finding of the learned Tribunal is without any flaw.

¶40

Be that as it may, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is exercising certiorari jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, as that part of the observation of the learned Tribunal while discussing Ext-5 that the petitioner has not disclosed material facts about his brothers and sisters and that the petitioner has not disclosed whether his parents are alive or dead, is held to be contrary to the pleadings made in paragraph 8 of the written statement and reiterated in paragraph 5 (viii) of the impugned opinion by the learned tribunal. Hence, this matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh discussion on the evidence after considering the evidence available on record.

¶41

The learned Tribunal is also expected to assign a reason as to why Ext3, referred to in the evidence-on-affidavit by the petitioner was discarded and why out of Ext-4(i) & 4(ii) and Ext-5(i) & 5(ii), only Ext-4 and Ext-5 were considered and what necessitated the arraignment of the exhibit numbers which

¶42

Page No.# 6/6

¶43

was contrary to the manner of marking of the exhibits.

¶44

Accordingly, the impugned opinion dated 29.03.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 2^nd , Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in F.T. II Case No. 389/2007, arising out of DIST. No. 73/04, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back for a fresh opinion based on the written statement and the evidence already on record. While doing so, the learned Tribunal shall consider the observations made in this order.

¶45

The petitioner duly represented by his learned counsel is directed to appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. II, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, on or before 10.04.2026, and by producing a certified copy of the order await for further orders or instructions from the said learned Tribunal.

¶46

The Registry shall send back the records expeditiously along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record.

¶47

The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters shall also transmit a copy of this order to the Home and Political (B) Department.

¶48

The petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

JUDGE JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Salimuddin Ali @ Salim Ali v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salimuddin Ali @ Salim Ali v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariyam Bibi @ Mariyam Bewa @ Morium Bewa @ Marian Bibi Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Bahar Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Rajib Hussain Alias MD Rajib Hussain Vs the Union of India and Othrs