Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 521 (GAU)

Prova Rani Acharjee v. State of Assam

2013-08-02

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2013
JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the learned Foreigners' Tribunal-I, Karimganj in Foreigners' Tribunal Case No. 18/2006, arising out of F.T. Enquiry No. 63/2000, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. The petitioner was married to Late Monindra Acharjee of village-Bagargool, P.S. and District-Karimganj. She has 3 sons, namely, Uttam Acharjee, Sushen Acharjee and Tanay Acharjee and 4 daughters, namely, Jhuni Acharjee, Sikha Acharjee, Milon Acharjee and Sipra Acharjee. 2. Cases in the learned Foreigners' Tribunal-I, Karimganj were also registered on reference being made under section 2(1) of the Foreigners' Tribunal Order, 1964 against Uttam Acharjee, Milon Acharjee and Sipra Acharjee as F.T. Case No. 19/2006, F.T. Case No. 15/2006 and F.T. Case No. 17/2006, respectively. Judgments in the aforesaid cases were delivered by the learned Tribunal on 03.04.2008, 29.04.2008 and 28.04.2008, respectively. The learned Tribunal recorded opinion that they are not foreigners. 3. Apparently, no reference was made against her other sons and daughters. 4. In F.T. Case No. 19/2006, in respect of the eldest son of the petitioner, namely, Uttam Acharjee, on the basis of the admit card of the High School Leaving Certification Examination, the learned Tribunal held that date of birth of Uttam Acharjee is 29.03.1966. In F.T. Case No. 19/2006, annexed as annexure-7 to the writ petition, the learned Tribunal held as follows:- As the father of O.P. was living in Assam since 1963, show that the O.P. is a citizen of India by birth as he stated in his evidence that he was born in village Bagargool. 5. After receipt of notice, the petitioner had submitted the written statement and also exhibited certain documents during the course of proceedings. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the oral and documentary evidence led by the petitioner would go to show that she did not depose anything with regard to her being a citizen of the country and she only claimed the citizenship on the basis of her husband as an Indian citizen. The learned Tribunal held as follows:- From Ext. 1 it is seen that the husband of O.P. Lt. Monindra Acharjee paid land revenue to Land Lord, Bijit Bhusan Bhattacharjee in 1965 B.S., From Ext. 2 it is seen that husband of O.P. Lt. Monindra Acharjee purchased a plot of land from Kanchan Mohan Paul on 21.4.1970. From Ext. The learned Tribunal held as follows:- From Ext. 1 it is seen that the husband of O.P. Lt. Monindra Acharjee paid land revenue to Land Lord, Bijit Bhusan Bhattacharjee in 1965 B.S., From Ext. 2 it is seen that husband of O.P. Lt. Monindra Acharjee purchased a plot of land from Kanchan Mohan Paul on 21.4.1970. From Ext. 1 it is clear that the husband of O.P. Lt. Monindra Acharjee lived in the land of Bijit Bhusan Bhattacharjee from 1958 by paying Land Revenue. From oral and documentary evidence of the O.P. it is seen that the O.P. has narrated facts of her husband but she deposed nothing about herself and stated nothing where and when she was borne and when she got married with her husband. She claims that she is an Indian Citizen on the footing of her husband. From evidence available in the record it cannot be opined that the Opposite Party is an Indian Citizen. Considering the above, I hereby give my opinion that the Opposite Party Smti. Prova Rani Acharjee is a foreigner. 6. From the aforesaid, it would appear that there is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner is an Indian citizen, who was living in Assam at least from 1958. There is also a finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that Uttam Acharjee was born in India on 29.03.1966. 7. This Court cannot ignore the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in the cases pertaining to her sons and daughters. If that be so, the logical inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner was in India, at least, on 29.03.1966. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. 9. The petitioner was recorded to be 65 years old on the date when she adduced evidence her on 30.11.2007. In her written statement she had also stated that she was an Indian by birth. From her evidence, translated copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5, it is seen that she had also deposed that she was born in the year 1944 in India though she could not give the date of birth. There was no cross-examination of the petitioner on this point. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspective and totally overlooked this vital piece of evidence. 10. There was no cross-examination of the petitioner on this point. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspective and totally overlooked this vital piece of evidence. 10. There is, thus, error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No cost. Petition allowed