A.K. Goel, CJ (ACTG.) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2358/2011 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against the order of the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Morigaon declaring the appellant as foreigner under section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 2. On a reference made to the Foreigners Tribunal under the provisions of Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, notice was issued to the appellant, but he denied the allegation of his being foreigner and submitted that his parents Hazarat Ali and Aiton Nessa had already died. His father was a voter in the voters' list of 1965 and the voters' list of 1970 and he himself was a voter in voters' list of 1997. 3. The State led evidence comprising inter alia of PW1, Shri Prafulla Ch. Bora, who stated that on the enquiry conducted, he found that the appellant had migrated from village and P.S. Lakhai, District Syllet of Bangladesh after 25.3.1971 and he settled on Government land at Naramari Reserve. This allegation was supported by PW1, Pitkan Bardaloi, the local Goanburah. The appellant who was examined himself as OPW1 stated that his parents had died and they had come from village Goraimari under Laharigahat police station and he had studied at Solmari High School. He proved the School Certificate, Ext. Ka. He also proved Exts Kha and Ga, voters' lists of 1965 and 1977. 4. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not an Indian citizen as he was not able to establish his linkage with his alleged parents. The finding recorded is as under : "I have carefully perused the records and heard argument from both sides. Also I have carefully scrutinized the documents exhibited. It appears from the exhibited documents namely Ext. Ka, Kha, Ga and Gha that there are discrepancies in the name of the father and OP No.1 (since deceased) of the contesting OP. As per Ext. Ka, the School Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Solmari High School Md. Ajijur Rahman was the son of Md. Hazarat Ali, but Ext Kha and Ga show that one Harjat Ali was the voter as per voter lists, 1965 and 1970, but the name of the father of said Harjat Ali was shown differently. In Ext. As per Ext. Ka, the School Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Solmari High School Md. Ajijur Rahman was the son of Md. Hazarat Ali, but Ext Kha and Ga show that one Harjat Ali was the voter as per voter lists, 1965 and 1970, but the name of the father of said Harjat Ali was shown differently. In Ext. Kha, Harjat Ali was shown as S/o Asamuddin and in Ext. Ga, said Harjat Ali was shown as S. Hasan. There is a difference in respect of age of the voter Harjat Ali in Ext. Kha and Ga also. Similarly, Aiton Nessa (OP No.2) was shown as W/o Jabed Ali and her age was shown as 40(forty) years in Ext. Ga, the voter list, 1970. Similarly, Ext. Gha, the voter list, 1997 shows the name of one Ajibur Rahman, S/o Hazarat Ali, aged 26 years, but as per records and the W/S submitted by OP No. 3, it was Ajijur Rahman, not Ajibur Rahman. Hence, it can not be said that the voter Ajibur Rahman of ext. Gha and the contesting OP, Ajijur Rahman was the one and the same person. Similarly, it can not be ascertained from Ext. Kha and Ga that Harjat Ali was the father of the contesting OP, Ajijur Rahman. According to the evidence of OPW1, the name of his father was Hazarat Ali, not Harjat. These discrepant documents submitted by the OP could not establish the relationship with his father. It was held by the hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 190/2009 State v. Md. Abdul Kuddus that, "filing of some documents and picking up any name from such documents, so as to establish relationship with the said person as father or mother or even grand-father or grand-mother does not establish Indian Citizenship of a foreigner. Discrepancy in the name of the OP and his father with the name in the documents filed by him can not be taken as legal evidence to confer Indian Citizenships". The School Certificate (Ext. Ka) in the name of the contesting O.P. can not confer his Indian Citizenship when he failed to establish linkage with his father and mother." Aggrieved by the above, the appellant filed writ petition in this court. After perusal of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge upheld the view taken by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. After perusal of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge upheld the view taken by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. The relevant discussion is as under : "The analysis of evidence by the learned Tribunal has been noted above. One interesting feature of the case is that the petitioner although has claimed to have read up to Class-VIII in the particular school but while accepting the notice from the Tribunal, he put his LTI, meaning thereby he is illiterate. But on the other hand in the written statement filed by him, he put his signature in Assamese. On comparison of his signatures appearing in the documents pertaining to the proceeding, such as, appearance slip, vakalatnama, written statement etc., prima facie, it appears that the signatures are all different. Be that as it may, this aspect of the matter need not detain us. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, the aforesaid fact of his father Hazarat Ali being an Indian citizen on the strength of 1965 voter list was stated. It was also stated that both his parents, namely, Hazarat Ali and Aitun Nessa, expired during the pendency of the proceeding, It was also stated that the name of the petitioner appeared in the voter list of 1997. The written statement was filed on 20.4.2007 and, thus, the same came to be filed after long 6(six) years on initiation of the proceeding. In support of the said stand in the written statement, the petitioner exhibited the purported School Certificate "Ext. Ka", which is undated. There is also no indication as to who had issued the Certificate and on which date. On the fact of it, the said Certificate is unbelievable. The particular portion of the Certificate wherein Ext.-Ka is marked is removed and pasted with white paper on the back. Coupled with this the petitioner also did not choose to examine the author of the said Certificate to prove the same. The 1965 voter list of No.84 Lahorighat Constituency (Certified Copy) (Ext-Kha) contains the name of one Harjat Ali S/o Asamuddin and, thus, no way relates to the father of the petitioner, whose name is Hazarat Ali. Likewise, the 1970 Certified Copy of the voter list (Ext. Ga) of the same constituency contains the name of one Harjat Ali S/o Hasan. The 1965 voter list of No.84 Lahorighat Constituency (Certified Copy) (Ext-Kha) contains the name of one Harjat Ali S/o Asamuddin and, thus, no way relates to the father of the petitioner, whose name is Hazarat Ali. Likewise, the 1970 Certified Copy of the voter list (Ext. Ga) of the same constituency contains the name of one Harjat Ali S/o Hasan. Interestingly, in this voter list, Aitun Nessa, whom the petitioner claims to be his mother is indicated as wife of Zabed Ali and, thus, no way relates to Hazarat Ali or even Harjat Ali. Ext. Gha, 1997 voter list contains the name of one Ajibur Rahman and, thus, no way relates to Ajijur Rahman i.e., the petitioner. In any case solely on the basis of 1997 voter list, the petitioner cannot claim to be an Indian citizen, by birth. As regards the residential Certificate on which the petitioner has placed reliance, the said Certificate even if considered on its face value, cannot establish that the petitioner is an Indian citizen, by birth. The said Certificates only certify that the petitioner is an inhabitant of the particular locality. They do not certify that the petitioner is an Indian citizen, by birth. There is another aspect of the matter. As pointed out by the Apex Court in LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere making of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. In the instant case, the petitioner merely exhibited the aforementioned documents without proving the contents and/or establishing the link with the persons named in the said exhibits. The petitioner has claimed that the name of his father is Hazrat Ali and mother is Aitun Nessa. The name of the petitioner is Ajijur Rahman. According to the petitioner, the name of his grand-father is Asamuddin @ Hasan, but interestingly, the same very petitioner accepted his grand father as Jan Ali Sheikh in the proceeding before the Tribunal. The notice from the Tribunal was issued to Hazarat Ali as S/o Jan Ali Sheikh and the said notice was accepted by the petitioner himself. It was never contended before the Tribunal that the name of his grand-father is not Jan Ali Sheikh but Asamuddin or Hasan. The notice from the Tribunal was issued to Hazarat Ali as S/o Jan Ali Sheikh and the said notice was accepted by the petitioner himself. It was never contended before the Tribunal that the name of his grand-father is not Jan Ali Sheikh but Asamuddin or Hasan. The petitioner claims the name of his mother as Aitun Nessa and, thus, naturally, said Aitun Nessa should be the wife of his father Hazarat Ali but in the voter list( Ext Ga) on which the petitioner placed reliance, she is shown to be the wife of Zabed Ali and not Hazarat Ali. In the voter list of 1997 on which the petitioner placed reliance (Ext. Gha), the name of the person concerned is Ajibur Rahman and not Ajijur Rahman. In spite of the aforesaid revelation as per the own showing of the petitioner, he claims to be an Indian citizen, by birth. As has been recorded in the findings of the Tribunal, the PW2 in his deposition fully established the case of the prosecution including exhibition of documents pertaining to the enquiry and the report thereof. Although, he was cross-examined, nothing contradictory could be extracted. As against the evidence adduced in support of the reference furnishing complete materials, the only question put to him on behalf of the petitioner was as to whether he had taken the statement of the persons concerned to which his reply was in the affirmative. No other question was put to him except the suggestion that he did not visit the proceeds and ask for the documents. He also denied the suggestion that the proceedees are not illegal Bangadeshi migrant. PW1 in his deposition stated that he had accompanied the PW2 when he visited the place of the proceedees and that they could not produce any document in support of their claim of Indian citizenship. This witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner, although he was given opportunity to do so. As against the aforesaid evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the petitioner in his deposition narrated the story in the written statement. In his cross-examination, he identified his grand-father as Asamuddin. He also stated that no evidence was adduced to prove death of his parents. Later on, he said that he had furnished certificate of death as given by the Panchayat. In his cross-examination, he identified his grand-father as Asamuddin. He also stated that no evidence was adduced to prove death of his parents. Later on, he said that he had furnished certificate of death as given by the Panchayat. Irrespective of the aforesaid materials, I have considered the matter from the view point of all the above aspects of the matter. Even if it is held that the names of the parents of the petitioner appeared in the voters list of 1965 and 1970 respectively, but considering their age in 1965 and 1970, which is 35,38 and 40 respectively, their names ought to have appeared in earlier and later voter lists but there is no explanation as to why their names did not appear in any one list other than the 1965 and 1970. While the name of the purported father of the petitioner appeared in the voter list of 1965 and 1970 with the recording of age as 35 and 38 years respectively, the name of the purported mother of the petitioner appeared only in the voter list of 1970, recording her age as 40 years. But as noted above, the said purported mother, namely, Aitun Nessa, was indicted as wife of Zabed Ali and not Hazarat Ali. If the voter list of 1997 purportedly containing the name of the petitioner is also accepted, which apart from the fact that the person named therein is Ajibur Rahman and not the petitioner, i.e., Ajijur Rahman, but there is no explanation as to why his name did not appear in any of the voter list prior to 1997 or thereafter, in view of the fact that said Ajibur Rahman was shown as 26 years of age in the voter list of 1997. From the above and from whatever angle the matter is looked into, there cannot be a second opinion that the petitioner and his parents are foreign nationals, i.e., illegal Bangladeshi migrants who entered into Assam after the cut off date, i.e., 25.3.1971. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 2-5/4/2011 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st) Morigoan in FT Case (C) No.646/2006, is hereby upheld and the writ petition is dismissed." 5. We have the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 2-5/4/2011 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st) Morigoan in FT Case (C) No.646/2006, is hereby upheld and the writ petition is dismissed." 5. We have the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Sri H.R.A. Choudhury, senior advocate for the appellant submitted that the certificate given by the local Gaonburah and the School Certificate establish that his parents were Indian citizen prior to 1970. He further submitted that this court in the case of in Moslem Mondal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2010 (2) GLT1, in paragraph 37 held that the civil court jurisdiction on the issue of citizenship is not barred and the jurisdiction of Foreigners Tribunal was limited to give opinion on which further action could be taken by the concerned authority. 7. The learned counsel for the State of Assam, supports the findings of the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge and submitted the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge had recorded the finding based on evidence and held that the Certificate issued by the Gaonburah and the School Certificate were neither authentic nor sufficient to hold that the appellant was an Indian citizen. Similarly, the voter list claimed to be of his father had no relevance as there was contradictions in the names found therein and the father's and grand-father's names given by the appellant. It was further submitted that the question whether the civil court had jurisdiction or not did not arise before us. The Tribunal has also not gone beyond giving opinion on the reference made. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The issue before us is as to whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal and upheld by the learned Single Judge of this court requires any interference by us. 9. As noticed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India and Another, (2005) 5 SCC 665 , the Bangladeshi nationals illegally migrating to Assam could cause serious prejudice to the integrity of the NE Region. Referring to historical events in this regard, following the Assam accord, the hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof on the person concerned who claims to be a citizen of India. Referring to historical events in this regard, following the Assam accord, the hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof on the person concerned who claims to be a citizen of India. He always has to give evidence of his date of birth, place of birth, names of his parents, their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grand-parents may also be relevant under section 6A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. The Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal Act, 1983 was enacted to deal with the situation of influx of foreigners to the North Eastern region of the country. It was observed by the hon'ble Supreme Court that illegal migration by Bangladeshi nationals was akin to external aggression and could cause internal disturbances and it was the duty of the Union of India to take measures for protection of the State from such external aggression and internal disturbances under Article 355 of the Constitution. These observations of the hon'ble Supreme Court have to be kept in mind while dealing with the issue. 11. Undoubtedly, the order of the Tribunal seriously affects the right of the appellant to claim that he is a Indian citizen. In view of seriousness of the consequences, we have heard the matter at length and carefully perused the evidence on record. The School Certificate which the appellant has produced, has been found to be unacceptable as neither it indicates any date nor the identity of the person who issued it. The voters' list in respect of Sri Hazarat Ali claimed to be the father of the appellant has also been rejected on the ground that while according to the appellant, before the Tribunal, the name of his grand-father was Jan Ali Sheikh, in the writ petition, he declared the name of his grand­father as Asamuddin @ Hasan. In the voters' lists, the name of father Hazarat Ali is mentioned to be Hasan. These serious infirmities could not be explained by the appellant so as to make out a ground for interference. 12. We, thus, find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal and upheld by the learned Single Judge. 13. In the voters' lists, the name of father Hazarat Ali is mentioned to be Hasan. These serious infirmities could not be explained by the appellant so as to make out a ground for interference. 12. We, thus, find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal and upheld by the learned Single Judge. 13. As regards, the judgment of this court in Muslem Mondal (supra), against which, a review petition is stated to be pending consideration before Full Bench, we are of the view that no benefit can accrue to the appellant from the said judgment. The question whether the civil court has jurisdiction or not is not a question before us. It is also not shown that the Tribunal has gone beyond giving its opinion. 14. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.