Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 54 (GAU)

Diluwara Khatun v. Union Of India

2020-01-20

MANOJIT BHUYAN, NANI TAGIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Nani Tagia, J. - Heard Mr. A. Gautam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the review petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1; Ms. B. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 3, 5 & 6; and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4. 2. This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order, dated 30.11.2018, passed by this Court in WP(c)7265/2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, assailing the order, dated 27.08.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Barpeta, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 320/2016, holding the review petitioner/writ petitioner to be a foreigner of post-1971 stream, was dismissed. 3. Against the order passed by this Court, dated 30.11.2018, passed in WP(c)7265/2018, the review petitioner/writ petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court, being Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No(s). 12557/2019, which was dismissed vide order, dated 03.05.2019. 4. The present review petition had been filed only on the ground that this Court did not take into consideration the 'Jamabandi'(annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition) wherein the name of the petitioner along with her sisters and brothers had been recorded as Pattadar by way of inheritance of her deceased father namely Eyasin Khan in respect of a plot of land covered by Dag No. 267, 372 and 427, Patta No. 1, situated at village - Dakshin Sitoli under Mouza Jania in the district of Barpeta, Assam. 5. It is not in dispute that the 'Jamabandi' referred to and annexed in the writ petition, was not produced and exhibited before the learned Tribunal. Although the 'Jamabandi' annexed in the writ petition as Annexure-10, was not produced and exhibited before the learned Tribunal yet, the review petitioner contends that the relevance of the provisions of Regulation 41(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 , was not argued before this Court, and therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal by reviewing the order, dated 30.11.2018, passed by this Court in WP(c)7265/2018. 6. 6. It may be noted herein that the above argument was also made before the Honble Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the review petitioner and the Honble Supreme Court, on consideration of the matte in its entirety, had dismissed the SLP filed by the review petitioner vide order, dated 03.05.2019. 7. Be that as it may, this Court, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with regard to the order passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, have consistently held that the document/ evidence which were not produced and exhibited before the learned Tribunal, the same cannot be looked into and examined by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the facts obtaining as above, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the order, dated 30.11.2018, passed by this Court in WP(c)7265/2018, requiring any review of the order passed. 9. Accordingly, the review petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.