JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (U. Bhuyan, J) This case was heard on 02.03.2017 and today is fixed for delivery of order. 2. Accordingly, order is being dictated in the open court. 3. We have heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. P. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No.450/2009 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner against the order of the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh dated 07.11.2008 in F.T. Case No.21/2006 declaring the appellant to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 5. Initially a reference was made by the State against the appellant under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 with the allegation that appellant was an illegal migrant as defined under the said Act. The reference was registered as DDT 1442/2001 before the Tribunal constituted under the said Act. The said Tribunal vide order dated 16.03.2002 declared the appellant as illegal migrant. Appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the said Act but the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Against such dismissal of appeal, appellant preferred a writ petition before this court which was registered as WP(C) No.6988/2002. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 12.11.2002. 6. Against the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2002, appellant preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench which was registered as WA No.27/2003. By the judgment and order dated 06.08.2003 the said appeal was allowed by taking the view that adequate opportunity was not granted to the appellant to adduced evidence. Order of the Tribunal dated 16.03.2002 was set aside and the matter was remanded back for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant for adducing evidence. 7. In the meanwhile, the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665 . Consequently, the reference was re-registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 as F.T. Case No.21/2006 which was assigned to the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh (Tribunal) for opinion. 8. Appellant examined 3 witnesses including himself and exhibited one document. Consequently, the reference was re-registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 as F.T. Case No.21/2006 which was assigned to the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh (Tribunal) for opinion. 8. Appellant examined 3 witnesses including himself and exhibited one document. After hearing the matter, Tribunal passed the order dated 07.11.2008 declaring the appellant to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 9. Appellant then preferred a writ petition before this court challenging the legality, validity of the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2008 which was registered as WP(C) No. 450/2009. By the judgment and order dated 05.02.2010, learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. 10. Hence this appeal. 11. This court by order dated 28.05.2010 had admitted the appeal for hearing, and passed an interim order to the effect that if the appellant had already been taken into custody, then till disposal of the appeal he should not be deported to any place outside India. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had adduced adequate evidence in discharge of his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India. Tribunal on an erroneous appreciation of the materials on record came to an unjust conclusion holding the petitioner to be an illegal migrant. Learned Single Judge also did not consider the evidence on record in the correct perspective and committed a manifest error in upholding the finding of the Tribunal thereby causing injustice to the appellant. He, therefore, submits that both the orders under appeal should be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on an unreported decision of a Single Bench of this court dated 21.01.2014, passed in WP(C) No.1644/2013 (Dinesh Sarkar vs Union of India). 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that on due consideration of the materials on record, Tribunal had returned a finding of fact which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Such finding of fact cannot be said to be based on inadmissible evidence or on no evidence. In such circumstance, there would be no scope to interfere with the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal as affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, they submit. 14. Such finding of fact cannot be said to be based on inadmissible evidence or on no evidence. In such circumstance, there would be no scope to interfere with the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal as affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, they submit. 14. The chequered history of the case has already been noted above. 15. After remand by this court in appeal, appellant examined 3 witnesses including himself and exhibited one document (Exbt. ‘Ka’) before the Tribunal. In his written statement, appellant stated that he was a citizen of India by birth being born at village-Garaimari under Khowang Police Station in the district of Dibrugarh. His father Ghatak Halder and wife Haridashi migrated to West Bengal from East Pakistan in 1970. They stayed at Khidirpur, P.O. Balurghat in the district of West Dinajpur. Appellant’s father was the owner and occupier of a plot of land covered by T.L. No.89, Khatian No.508, Touji No.15 under Khidirpur Mouza in West Dinajpur district of West Bengal. In this connection Land Settlement Department of West Bengal had issued a land certificate in favour of the appellant’s father in the year 1970. Subsequently, appellant’s father along with wife came to Garaimari village in Khowang in the district of Dibrugarh where appellant was born along with his sisters. While appellant examined himself as witness No.1, Sri Krishna Das of Khowang Khawoimari village deposed as witness No.2; another resident of village Garaimari Sri Tarapada Sarkar deposed as witness No.3. Land document relating to the aforesaid land at Khidirpur in West Dinajpur district of the year 1970 was exhibited as Exbt.’ka’. On due consideration, Tribunal held as under:---- “Before hearing on 18.8.2008, O.P. submitted a petition with a prayer to call for a report on the so called khatian No. 508 G.L. No. 89 under Mauza Khidirpur, Dist West Dinajpur, West Bengal in the name of Ghatak Halder, father of the O.P. For ends of justice a report has been called for from the West Bengal Government as described by the O.P. with a Xerox copy of Ex. Ka. Ka. But till date as no report was received, O.Ps case closed on the ground that the document on which the report has been sought for was of date 03.06.1990 not of date 07.08.1970 as stated by the O.P. In the judgment it is very clear that the digit 9 has been converted to 7 through over writing. However, whether the document was of date 07.06.1970 or 08.06.1990 it will not help the O.P. As such reference was fixed for argument and order. Argument heard on 30.10.2008 and fixed 07.11.2008 for order. But on the 5th of Nov/08 the report of West Bengal Government is received by registered post. The Dist Magistrate of Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat, West Bengal has sent the report vide its no.724/c/2008 dated 15th Oct/08 stating that..... “.......The report as submitted by Block Land and Land Reform Officer, Balurghat, Dakhin Dinajpur is enclosed alongwith copies of other documents for your kind perusal and taking necessary action. From the report of the B.L. & L.R.O., Balurghat it appears that the copy of Khatian produced by Mahadev Halder is not proper”. I have carefully examined the report of B.L. & L.R of Balurghat. Dakshin Dinajpur submitted to the Addl. District Magistrate and Dist Land and Land Reforms Officer, Balurghat. From the report of B. L. & L.R. of Balurghat submitted vide No. 841/B/1-Big dt.29.09.2008, it appears that they have enclosed total 5 certified copy of land records under Khatian No.508, G.L. No.89 which reveals that under khatian No.508, G.L. No. 89 name of some other persons were included as “DAKHALKAR” of the land. Name of Ghatak Halder did not appear in the land records in 1970 as stated by the O.P. The documents above referred were compared, verified and certified on 03.10.2008. The original Khatian No.508, G.L. No.89 was issued on 02.03.1956 in the name of Ananta Bihari Saki. In view of the above referred report received from the Dist. Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal, I have come to a conclusion that O.P. has exhibited false manipulated document and thereby he committed a criminal offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Except the Ex.ka, O.P., could not produce any other material documents in support of his case that he was born in 1971 at Khowng Goroimari. It is an admitted fact that O.P’s parents came from Bangladesh before 25/26 years back i.e., after 25th March, 1971. Except the Ex.ka, O.P., could not produce any other material documents in support of his case that he was born in 1971 at Khowng Goroimari. It is an admitted fact that O.P’s parents came from Bangladesh before 25/26 years back i.e., after 25th March, 1971. Moreover, in the petition dated 18.08.2008 in para 3 O.P. submitted that:-- “.....and the govt. of West Bengal in 1970 issued Khatian No. 508 T (G) L No.89 under the Mouza Khidirpur in the name of Ghatak Halder.” Further in para 4 he submitted that “The documents aforesaid have been last and inspite of best efforts, the said document could not be found/traced out by the opposite party, except the Revenue receipt of 1970 in the name of Ghatak Halder.” But curiously enough, instead of Revenue receipt O.P. submitted his so called lost Khatian No.508 G.L. No.89 along with W.S., Xerox copy of which we sent to the West Bengal Government for verification. Yes, it is true, that the report received from the West Bengal Government has immensely help this Tribunal to arrive at a just and proper decision in adjudicating the matter in issue in the case stated by the O.P. in his W.S. in para 6. Under the circumstances I have come to a conclusion that O.P. is a foreigner who entered into Assam after 25th March, 1971 for which he had to submit false and forged document and made false statement along with other two witness.” 16. From the above what is discernible is that Tribunal had called for a report from the revenue authorities of West Bengal regarding the genuineness of Exbt-‘ka’. The report of the West Bengal Government dated 15.10.2008 disclosed that the copy of Khatian produced by the appellant was not proper as per the report of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Balurghat. Not only that Tribunal found that Exbt.-‘ka’ was in fact a document compared, verified and certified on 03.10.2008 and the original Khatian was issued as far back as on 02.03.1956 in the name of another person, namely, Ananta Bihari Saki. Therefore, Tribunal came to the conclusion that appellant had exhibited a false document to mislead the Tribunal. Accordingly, the reference was answered in favour of the State by holding the appellant to be a foreigner of the above stream. 17. Therefore, Tribunal came to the conclusion that appellant had exhibited a false document to mislead the Tribunal. Accordingly, the reference was answered in favour of the State by holding the appellant to be a foreigner of the above stream. 17. Learned Single Judge minutely perused the record and accepted the finding of the Tribunal that the original Khatian in respect of the concerned land was issued on 02.03.1956 in the name of Ananta Bihari Saki and that name of appellant’s father did not appear in the land records of 1970 as claimed by the appellant. 18. Learned Single Judge held as under:-- “9. The State examined PW 1, Shri Riheswar Saikia, who deposed that during the enquiry the petitioner admitted that he had come to India from the village Kusan under police station Naria in the District of Faridpur, East Bengal before 25/26 years. The enquiry was made on 02.04.2010 and the petitioner could not produce any evidence to prove that he had come to Assam before 25.03.1971. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner was an illegal migrant and accordingly submitted his report in the prescribed format. The report was exhibited and proved in the proceeding. It will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not make any challenge to his admission made before PW 1. 10. The stand of the petitioner before the Foreigners Tribunal has been noted above. The only plea advanced by the petitioner in support if his case was the aforesaid document (khatian) stated to be of 1970(07.06.70). 11. The aforesaid document was exhibited to prove the factum of migration of the petitioner’s father from East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh) to West Bengal in 1970. To the question put by the court, the petitioner admitted that the said document (Exhibit “ka”) under the signature of the so called officer, the date 08.06.1970 is a manipulated one inasmuch as the digit “7” was originally “9”, but was made to appear as “7” by overwriting. Thus, the said document was of the year 1990, but was made to appear to be of 1970 by manipulation of the digit “9” converting it to ”7”. 12. The contradiction in the depositions made by DWs as has been noted by the Tribunal, is also noteworthy. According to the petitioner, he was born on 10.03.1971 and since then he had been living at a place called ”Khowang”. 12. The contradiction in the depositions made by DWs as has been noted by the Tribunal, is also noteworthy. According to the petitioner, he was born on 10.03.1971 and since then he had been living at a place called ”Khowang”. DW 2 Shri Krishna Das of Khowang Kawoimari village stated in his evidence that he had seen the petitioner at village Gomoimari since 1971. According to his statement, Kawoimari and Goroimari are two different villages and there is a big river called Dihing between the two villages. DW2 in his deposition further stated that when he saw the petitioner, he was two years old and it was in 1971. Thus here is inherent contradiction in his statement. As observed by the Tribunal, the two villages Kawoimari and Goroimari are two different and distinct villages with a big river in between them coupled with the fact that DW2 is not a village mate of the petitioner, his evidence is unbelievable. Further DW2 also stated that he had seen the petitioner during fishing operation. If the petitioner was born in 1971, it is unbelievable that he could engage himself in fishing operation in 1971 itself. 13. As against the said evidence of DW2, DW3 in his deposition supporting the case of the petitioner stated that he was born at Khowang and had seen him at village Goroimari since 1970 which is contrary to the own statement of the petitioner as per which he was born in 1971. DW3 further stated that the petitioner’s father did not cast vote and he heard that he had come from Kolkata. Thus, DW2 and DW3 did not support the case of the petitioner that his parents had migrated to West Bengal from Bangladesh in the year 1970. 14. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition dated 18.08.08 filed by the petitioner with a prayer for calling the report regarding the aforesaid Ext. “ka” document having not been considered by the Tribunal, the findings arrived at without the said report is not tenable. Such statement on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not based on record. The said petition was duly entertained by the Tribunal and it was found that the particular Khatian was in the name of Ghatak Halder, purported father of the petitioner. For ends of justice the report was called for from the Govt. Such statement on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not based on record. The said petition was duly entertained by the Tribunal and it was found that the particular Khatian was in the name of Ghatak Halder, purported father of the petitioner. For ends of justice the report was called for from the Govt. of West Bengal as desired by the petitioner. As recorded by the Tribunal and also revealed from the records of the Tribunal, the particular document is of 1990 (08.06.90) and 1970 (07.08.70) as was claimed by the petitioner. It has also been recorded that the digit “9” as it originally stood was altered to “7” by overwriting. It the petitioner wanted to rely upon the said document, it was his duty to produce the authentic and certified copy of the same. He cannot shift the burden of proof to the State. As per the requirement of Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the person concerned and the petitioner failed to do so. 15. From the materials on record and also as recorded by the Tribunal, the report which was called for, was received on 05.11.08 by registered post. The District Magistrate of Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat, West Bengal in his report sent under No. 724c/2008 dated 15.10.08 made the following observation: “.......The report as submitted by Block Land and Land Reform Officer, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur is enclosed alongwith copies of other documents for your kind perusal and taking necessary action. From the report of the B.L. & L.R.O., Balurghat it appears that the copy of Khatian produced by Mahadev Halder is not proper”. 16. The Tribunal duly considered the report and the enclosed documents therewith. The authority of West Bengal Govt. had enclosed total 5 certified copies of the land records under the particular Khatian being Khatian No.508. GL No.89. In the said documents names of some other persons were included as “Dakhalkar” of the land. The name of Ghatak Halder, supposedly the father of the petitioner did not appear in the said land records of 1970 as was claimed by the petitioner. The said documents were compared, verified and certified on 03.10.08. The original Khatian was issued on 02.03.56 in the name of one Ananta Bihari Saki. The name of Ghatak Halder, supposedly the father of the petitioner did not appear in the said land records of 1970 as was claimed by the petitioner. The said documents were compared, verified and certified on 03.10.08. The original Khatian was issued on 02.03.56 in the name of one Ananta Bihari Saki. In view of the above, it has rightly been observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner had exhibited false and manipulated documents and thereby committed criminal offence. 17. As recorded above, except Ext. “Ka” the petitioner could not produce any other materials in support of his case that he was an Indian citizen by Birth. In the above referred petition dated 18.08.08 praying for producing the records relating to said Khatian, it was stated as follows: “....and the Govt. of West Bengal in 1970 issued Khatian No.508, T(G)L No.89 under the Mouza Khidirpur in the name of Shri Ghatak Halder.” 18. Further in paragraph-4 of the petition the statement made was “The documents aforesaid have been lost and inspite of best efforts, the said documents could not be found/traced out by the opposite party, except the revenue receipt of 1970 in the name of Ghatak Halder.” 19. The above statement made by the petitioner himself in the petition and in consideration of the same along with the report and the documents submitted by the authorities of the West Bengal Govt. clearly revealed the false case of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been mentioned by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 20. Above being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.” 19. Though appellant in his written statement had mentioned that he and his sisters were born at Khowang, none of them came forward to depose before the Tribunal. Except the discredited Exbt.-‘ka’ appellant could not produce any other document in respect of his claim of being a citizen of India. 20. On thorough consideration of the materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal was based on materials on record which were re-appreciated by the learned Single Judge while concurring with such finding of fact. 21. While a Writ court certainly has the jurisdiction to interfere with an order of the Tribunal in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, the width of such jurisdiction is limited. 21. While a Writ court certainly has the jurisdiction to interfere with an order of the Tribunal in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, the width of such jurisdiction is limited. A Full Bench of this court in State vs. Moslem Mondol, (2013) 1 GLT 809, has held that only in the event of a finding of the Tribunal being based on inadmissible evidence or when admissible evidence were not taken into consideration or when the finding was based on no evidence, the Writ court would examine such finding of fact returned by the Tribunal because in such an event, it would be an error apparent on the face of the record. The other errors of fact, howsoever grave those may be, may not be gone into by the Writ court. Notwithstanding the same, as noticed above, learned Single Judge had minutely examined the materials on record and thereafter, came to the conclusion as above. 22. The Supreme Court in Management of Narendra and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Workmen of Narendra and Company (2016) 3 SCC 340 , has held that in an intra court appeal on a finding of fact returned by the Single Bench, the Appellate Bench should not disturb the same unless a conclusion is reached that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with the order passed by the Single Bench. 23. On due consideration we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 24. Registry to send down the LCR forthwith and inform the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, Superintendent of Police (B) and Deputy Commissioner for necessary follow up action.