JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the opinion dated 27.07.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-5th, Morigaon, Assam in Case No. F.T.(C)199/2016 (New) corresponding to Case No. F.T. (C) 1293/2012 (Old) by which the petitioners herein including the deceased petitioner No.2, namely, Md. Ahmod Ullah were declared to be foreigners post 25.03.1971. 2. The Superintendent of Police (B) Morigaon had submitted a reference against (1) Md. Ahmod Ullah (dead), (2) Gule Khatun, wife of Md. Ahmod Ullah, (3) Siddique Ali, son of proceedees No.1 and 2, (4) Ajahar Ali, son of Siddique Ali, (5) Tara Banu, wife of Siddique Ali, and (6) Rabiya, daughter of Siddique Ali, all residents of Village- Saruchala, under P.S. Moirabari, Dist. Morgiaon, Assam. In the said reference, it was alleged that they are suspected illegal migrants who had entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971. 3. Initially the said reference was registered as I.M.(D.)T. Case No.791/2002 dated 31.07.2002. The said case was then re-registered before the Foreigners Tribunal as F.T. Case No.1293/2012 and the same was again re-numbered as F.T.(C) 199/2016. 4. The petitioners had contested the said reference and thereafter, by opinion dated 29.11.2017, rendered by the learned Tribunal in F.T.(C) 199/2016, all the proceedees were declared to be foreigners of post 25.03.1971. The aggrieved proceedees had approached this court by filing a writ petition which was numbered as W.P.(C) 2886/2018. This Court by order dated 11.05.2018, had set aside the opinion dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal in F.T.(C) 199/2016 and liberty was granted to the proceedees to appear before the learned Tribunal along with documents upon which they intended to rely upon before the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, liberty was granted to the petitioners to give further evidence. Upon scrutiny of the evidence available on record, the reference was answered in the affirmative in respect of the 6 (six) proceedees by holding them to be foreigners of post 25.03.1971. The said opinion is impugned herein. 5. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he has filed an I.A. for deleting the name of the petitioner No.2 i.e. Md. Ahmod Ullah. 6. The said opinion is impugned herein. 5. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he has filed an I.A. for deleting the name of the petitioner No.2 i.e. Md. Ahmod Ullah. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to all the 34 documents annexed to the writ petition and it is submitted that the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence on record. 7. Accordingly, the materials available on record have been examined. It is seen that in this writ petition, the petitioners have not annexed their evidence- on- affidavit or the copy of cross-examination of their respective witnesses. However, as per the written statement annexed to this writ petition (Annexure-3), it appears that the petitioners had relied on the following documents, viz., (i) voters list of 1966, containing the name of the proceedee No.1 i.e. Ahmod Ullah; (ii) death certificate proceedee No.1; (iii) voter list of 1965 containing the name of projected parents of the petitioner No.1 (Ext.B); (iv) Gaonbura's Certificate of place of birth of petitioner No.2; (v) voters list of 1970 containing the name of petitioner No.1 (Ext.C); (vi) voters list of 1985 containing the name of the petitioner No.1; (vii) voters list of 1997 containing the name of petitioners No.3 and 5; (viii) birth certificate of petitioners No.4 and 5; (ix) voters list of 1965 containing the name of father of the petitioner No.5; (x) Gaonbura's certificate of place of birth of respondent No.5. 8. Examination of documentary evidence in respect of petitioner No.1, namely, Guljan Bibi:- a. In respect of petitioner No.1, it is observed that the petitioner No.1 has annexed an affidavit dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-20), wherein her age is stated to be 75 years. Hence, the petitioner No.1 was born in or about the year 1943. The learned Tribunal in its finding has recorded that in her deposition on 10.10.2017, the petitioner has stated her age to be 75 years and accordingly, the learned Tribunal had opined that the petitioner No.1 was born in the year 1942 and, as such, the petitioner No.1 had got her voting right in the year 1963 on attaining the age of 21 years. Thus, the name of the petitioner No.1 could have easily been reflected in the voters list prepared after 1963. Thus, the name of the petitioner No.1 could have easily been reflected in the voters list prepared after 1963. But, the name of the petitioner had not appeared in voters list of 1965 and 1970 with her projected parents. Moreover, in connection with the voters list of 1971 (Ext.F), the petitioner No.1 claims that her name appears as Gule Banu and alongside her name, the name of husband appears as Aa: Ullah and her age is shown as 25 years. However, the petitioner has not given any explanation as to why her name did not appear in the voters list of 1970. No document is seen to have been exhibited to show that the petitioner was using the name of Gule Banu at any point of time. Thus, in none of the exhibited documents, the name of the petitioner No.1 appears together with name of her parents or her husband as voters. It is projected that in the voters list of 1985 (Ext.E), the name of the petitioner No.2 appears as Pole Khatun, but there is no other document to substantiate that the petitioner No.1 had used the name of Pole Khatun at any point of time. Moreover, in the voters list of 1965 and 1970, the name of both the parents of the petitioner No.1, i.e. Sangser Ali (father) and Tahirun Nessa (mother) does not appear together. Similarly, as indicated herein before the name of the petitioner does not appear together with her projected husband in the voters list of 1965 and 1970. Under such circumstances, the voters list exhibited before the learned Tribunal does not inspire confidence that the petitioner No.1 is the daughters of her projected parents or that she was married to the proceedee No.1 prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971. b. In respect of the Certificate issued by the Secretary, Moiradhaj Gaon Panchayat dated 22.06.2015 (Ext.A), certifying marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the proceedee No.1, it is seen that it is mentioned therein that the said certificate was issued based on the evidence placed before the issuing authority. b. In respect of the Certificate issued by the Secretary, Moiradhaj Gaon Panchayat dated 22.06.2015 (Ext.A), certifying marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the proceedee No.1, it is seen that it is mentioned therein that the said certificate was issued based on the evidence placed before the issuing authority. In this connection, if the petitioner No.1 could have produced evidence before the Secretary, Moiradhaj Gaon Panchayat, there appears to be no reason for the petitioner No.1 not to produce such evidence before the learned Tribunal because a certificate based on other evidence would render such certificate to be a secondary evidence of other records, which renders the said certificate (Ext.A) to be inadmissible in evidence in the absence of proof of primary evidence. Moreover, signatory of the Ext.A certificate i.e. the Secretary, Moiradhaj Gaon Panchayat has not been examined to prove his writing, signature and its contents. c. In respect of the Gaonbura's certificate (Ext.D), it is seen that the petitioners have not examined the said Gaonbura to prove the writing, signature and its contents. Hence, the said certificate stands not proved. d. Accordingly, in view of the discussions above, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of the petitioner No.1 cannot be faulted with. Thus, as it the documents exhibited by the petitioners do not lead to a conclusion that the petitioner No.1 or the proceedee No.1 are Indian citizen, the declaration to the effect that they are foreigners is found to be sustainable. 9. As a natural fall-out, the resultant finding by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner No.3, namely, Siddique Ali @ Abu Bakkar Siddique, who is the son of the petitioner No.1 and proceedee No.1 is also a foreigner post 25.03.1971 cannot be faulted with. 10. Examination of documentary evidence in respect of petitioner No.5, namely, Tara Banu:- a. The petitioner No.5 has heavily relied on the jamabandi (Ext.V), showing that the petitioner had inherited land from her father in the year 2017. The entries made in the said jamabandi is not a conclusive proof of death of her projected father, namely, Afsar Ali and, as such, the projected case of inheritance fails because the learned Tribunal has aptly appreciated that the name of the petitioner No.5 has been mutated together with her projected father and not in place of deceased father. The entries made in the said jamabandi is not a conclusive proof of death of her projected father, namely, Afsar Ali and, as such, the projected case of inheritance fails because the learned Tribunal has aptly appreciated that the name of the petitioner No.5 has been mutated together with her projected father and not in place of deceased father. Moreover, entries in the jamabandi (land revenue record) is not a conclusive proof of title and jamabandi is not even a document of title, as such, in the absence of the sale deed being proved in accordance with law, the entries made in the jamabandi does not prove the relationship of the petitioner No.5 with her projected father or that her said projected father was a citizen of India, having entered India before the cut of date of 01.01.1966 or between the period after 01.01.1996 and prior to cut-off date of 25.03.1971. b. The petitioner No.5 has also relied on two certificates issued by the Gaon Panchayat (Ext.R) and (Ext.U). However, the signatory of the said certificate has not been examined to prove the writing, signature and its contents. Hence, the said certificate stands not proved. c. Moreover, the voter identity card (Ext.W) and the PAN Card (Ext.X) are post 25.03.1971 documents, which does not prove that the petitioner No.5 and/or her parents had entered India before the cut-off date of 25.03.1971. d. Hence, in view of the discussions above, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of the petitioner No.5 cannot be faulted with. Thus, as it the documents exhibited by the petitioners do not lead to a conclusion that the petitioner No.5 is an Indian citizen, as such, the declaration by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner No.5 is a foreigner is found to be sustainable. 11. As a natural fall-out, the resultant finding by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the petitioners No.4 and 6, namely, Ajahar Ali and Miss. Rabiya, who are the children of the petitioner No.3 and 5 are also foreigners post 25.03.1971 cannot be faulted with. 12. The other exhibits are also not found to help the petitioners in any manner to prove the linkage of the petitioner No.1 and 5 with their respective parents. 13. Rabiya, who are the children of the petitioner No.3 and 5 are also foreigners post 25.03.1971 cannot be faulted with. 12. The other exhibits are also not found to help the petitioners in any manner to prove the linkage of the petitioner No.1 and 5 with their respective parents. 13. The primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not. Therefore, as the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the proceedee, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving citizenship absolutely rests upon the proceedee as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In the present case in hand, the petitioners had failed to discharge the burden and to prove that they are offspring of parents of Indian origin. 14. In light of discussions above, this Court does not find that the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by any jurisdictional error or that there was any failure of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, as the Court is exercising supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting the opinion rendered by the learned tribunal with the view of the Court. This is not a case where the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidence or that its finding is dehors the evidence on record. 15. Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 16. A copy of this order may be made a part of the records of the learned Tribunal for future reference. 17. No cost.