JUDGMENT : (N. Kotiswar Singh, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4, 5; Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI for respondent No.1; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI appearing for respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for respondent No.7. Ms. Devi also appears for respondent No.6 as the learned Standing Counsel, NRC. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.8th, Barpeta, Assam in F.T. Cases No.174/17 [IM(D)T Case No.6206/B/98] by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner who entered India (Assam) illegally after 25.03.1971. 3. The petitioner on receipt of summon from the learned Foreigners Tribunal in the aforesaid proceeding appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed her written statement. The petitioner also exhibited a number of documents and examined herself as DW1. She also examined her projected mother as DW2 and the Gaonburah as DW3 to support her claim that she is an Indian. 4. However, the learned Tribunal did not believe the claim of the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that she was not been able to prove her linkage with the projected parents in view of the discrepancies in the name of the grandparents in the voters lists. The learned Tribunal also did not accept the certificates issued by the Gaonburah as inadmissible in law as these had not been proved in accordance with law and accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the evidence of the petitioner is not cogent and reliable and no valid documents or evidence had been produced to connect the petitioner with the projected father and as such, the learned Tribunal held that she failed to discharge the burden cast under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1946 and declared her a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 5. Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on various grounds. 6. 5. Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on various grounds. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had given a categorical statement before the learned Tribunal that she was born in the year 1974 to her father, namely, Rukmini Goswami (now deceased) who had migrated along with her grandfather, namely, Pranabananda Goswami (deceased) from East Pakistan in the year 1959 due to communal disturbances in East Pakistan and they crossed over to India to take shelter in India because of religious persecution. It has been stated that her parents’ family first took shelter at village-Salbari under the then P.S. Sorbhog, District-Kamrup, Assam and later shifted to village-Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S.-Barama under the then District-Kamrup, Assam. She also stated that her grandfather had purchased a plot of land by registered sale deed on 28.03.1966 at Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama under the then District-Kamrup, Assam. The petitioner also claimed that the names of her father and grandfather, Rukmini Goswami and Paranabananda Goswami, were enrolled in the voters list of 1971 at Serial Nos. 332 and 330 respectively in respect of 65 No. Barama Legislative Assembly Constituency as residents of Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama under the then District Kamrup, Assam. It is also stated that the petitioner got married to one Pradip Roy of Village-Kalahabhanga, Mouza-DC Bausi, P.S. Barpeta Road, District-Barpeta, Assam in the year 1993 and since then she has been residing with her husband. She also stated that her mother’s name is Minoti Goswami who was born at Nalbari Town of the then District Kamrup, Assam and the names of her maternal grandfather and grandmother were Abinash Chandra Banarjee and Nani Bala Banarjee whose names appeared in the voters list of 1965 of Nalbari Legislative Assembly Constituency. She also stated that her father along with other family members later shifted to village-Ambari, Mouza-North Baksa under P.S. Barbari the then District Kamrup, Assam from Village-Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama of the then District-Kamrup in the year 1978 and the name of her father appeared in the voters lists of 1997 and 2010 in respect of Village-Ambari, Mouza-North Baksa, P.S. Barbari, District-Nalbari (now Baksa), Assam under 63 No. Chapaguri Legislative Assembly Constituency. She also stated that she was a student of Amarpur L.P. School in connection with which the Headmaster of the said School issued a certificate in her name. She also stated that the Gaonburah of village Ambari where her father shifted, had given certificates in her favour as well as, in her mother’s name to show that they are inhabitants of the said village. 7. The petitioner also produced a copy of the Photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India in that regard. 8. The mother of the petitioner, Minoti Goswami also gave her testimony before the learned Tribunal as DW2 in similar lines. Thereafter, the Gaonburah of Ambari (Mushalpur), Kamala Kanta Das, was examined who had issued the certificates in her favour as well as in the name of her mother. He testified before the learned Tribunal that he knew the petitioner as well as her mother. One Purnima Boro, the Headmistress of Amarpur Prathamik Bidyalaya, where the petitioner had studied was examined as the Court witness. The said Headmistress stated that the school certificate relied on by the petitioner was issued by the School and that the petitioner had passed Class I Examination. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these are sufficient documents to support the claim of the petitioner that she is an Indian. It has been submitted that the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner and her mother had not been disputed by the State and the genuineness of the documentary evidences exhibited and relied upon by the petitioner were also neither contested nor questioned by the State. It has been submitted that if the oral as well as the documentary evidences relied upon by the petitioner were not contested and challenged by the State, there is no reason why these could be ignored by the learned Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, it has been held by this Court in a number of decisions including in Motiur Rahman Vs. Union of India, [WP(C) No.3185/2017, decided on 26.11.2019], AIROnline 2019 GAU 593 :: (2020) 206 All INDCAS 816 that if the testimony of the witnesses and also the documents had not been disputed during the cross-examination, these could be acted upon. Union of India, [WP(C) No.3185/2017, decided on 26.11.2019], AIROnline 2019 GAU 593 :: (2020) 206 All INDCAS 816 that if the testimony of the witnesses and also the documents had not been disputed during the cross-examination, these could be acted upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said decision, this Court also observed that apart from non-contesting of the evidence of the petitioner, the State also did not lead any rebuttal evidence. 11. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said evidences, oral as well as the documentary, could not have been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal as had been done in the present case. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that there may be some discrepancies in the name of the father of the petitioner which has been sometimes reflected as “Pranaba” or “Premananda” in some of the voters lists. However, “Pranaba” is short form of “Pranabananda” and this is a minor discrepancy which could be ignored as also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sirajul Hoque Vs. State of Assam and Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 534 . 13. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 are not strictly applicable in a proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal but the broad principles are. Similarly, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not also strictly applicable as held by this Court in Idrish Ali Vs. The Union of India and 5 Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 847. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the learned Tribunal ought not to have ignored the aforesaid oral as well as documentary evidences adduced before the learned Tribunal. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the citizenship of the mother of the petitioner was never questioned, nor of her father, who died in the year 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the said circumstances, if citizenship of none of the parents’ had been put in question or doubted, there is no reason why the petitioner who was born in India in the year 1974 to Indian parents, should not be declared as an Indian citizen. It has been accordingly, submitted that in view of the above evidences on record, the petitioner may be declared an Indian citizen. 15. On the other hand, Mr. It has been accordingly, submitted that in view of the above evidences on record, the petitioner may be declared an Indian citizen. 15. On the other hand, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal has forcefully submitted that, in order to establish the citizenship of a person, the proceedee must first establish her linkage with her projected father and grandfather who are claimed to be Indians. Mr. G. Sarma submits that however, in the present case, there is not a single voters list showing the petitioner’s name with any of her parents. 16. Mr. G. Sarma submits that the certificates issued by the Gaonburah relied upon by the petitioner cannot be admissible in law as the State Emblem had been used in these certificates as held by this Court in Nasir Uddin Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors., [WP(C) No.3728/2016, decided on 05.04.2018]. 17. Mr. G. Sarma has further submitted that merely because the documents have not been disputed by the State does not mean that the burden of the petitioner to discharge as regards the proof of such documents can be waived. The burden of the petitioner to prove her linkage and also the documents so produced remains as held by this Court in Rukia Begum Vs. Union of India and 3 Ors, [WP(C) No.6344/2016, decided on 29.05.2018]. 18. Mr. G. Sarma further submits that it is seen from the records that the names of the father and grandfather of the petitioner are differently entered in the various voters lists. Unfortunately, no evidence has been led to prove that these are same persons, neither any steps were taken by the petitioner herself or by her parents for correction of the said discrepancies in the voters lists, and as such, it could not be established by the petitioner that the projected father and grandfather were indeed her father and grandfather. 19. It has been also submitted by Mr. G. Sarma that the petitioner could not have gone beyond the pleadings. It has been submitted that the petitioner in her deposition had made many factual statements which were not reflected in the written statement. It has been submitted that the petitioner could not be allowed to make improvements upon her case on what had been stated in the written statement. It has been submitted that the petitioner in her deposition had made many factual statements which were not reflected in the written statement. It has been submitted that the petitioner could not be allowed to make improvements upon her case on what had been stated in the written statement. It has been also submitted that mere filing of the written statement and giving oral testimony are not enough to establish one’s citizenship, relying on the decision of this Court in Bijoy Das vs. The Union of India and 5 Ors. [WP(C) No.562/2016, decided on 18.04.2018]. 20. It has been further submitted that mere enlistment of the name in the voters list and also claim of stay for a long period in this country are no proof of citizenship as held by this Court in Md. Fakharuddin Vs. The Union of India and 3 Ors. [WP(C) No.4512/2016, decided on 28.02.2018]. 21. Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, has submitted that under the circumstances, in view of the discrepancies in the names of the petitioner’s father and grandfather and also failure to provide proof of the linkage with her projected parents and other documents i.e. certificates issued by the Gaonburah as well as the School certificate have not been proved in accordance with law, the petitioner has not been able to prove that she is the daughter of Rukmini Goswami and Minoti Goswami. It has been accordingly submitted by Mr. G. Sarma that there is no illegality in the opinion dated 26.06.2018 rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.8, Barpeta, Assam, in F.T. Case No.174/17. 22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record. 23. As mentioned above, the proceedee, Gouri Goswami Roy had tendered her evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit in which she had clearly stated that her father’s name is Rukmini Goswami, now deceased who had migrated to India along with her grandfather, Pranabananda Goswami (now deceased), from East Pakistan in the year 1959 due to communal disturbances in East Pakistan and they crossed over to India to take shelter due to religious persecution. It was categorically stated that first they took shelter at village-Salbari under the then P.S. Sorbhog, District-Kamrup and later they shifted to village-Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama under the then District-Kamrup, Assam. It was categorically stated that first they took shelter at village-Salbari under the then P.S. Sorbhog, District-Kamrup and later they shifted to village-Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama under the then District-Kamrup, Assam. Thereafter, the petitioner’s grandfather Pranabananda Goswami had purchased a plot of land by way of registered sale deed on 28.03.1966 at Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama under the then District Kamrup, Assam. In support of the said claim, a photocopy of the registered sale deed was produced before the learned Tribunal. The proceedee/petitioner also relied on the certified copy of the voters list of 1971 in respect of 65 No. Barama Legislative Assembly Constituency wherein the names of her father and grandfather have been shown as Rukmini Goswami and Pranaba. The said voters list of 1971 was exhibited as Exhibit A which relates to village Lafakuchi, Mouza Dakhin Baksa, Police Station-Barama under the then District Kamrup. The Petitioner also claims that her mother’s name is Minoti Goswami who was born at Nalbari Town under the then District Kamrup and the names of her maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother are Abinash Chandra Banarjee and Nani Bala Banarjee, respectively. A photocopy of the certified copy of voters list of 1965 was also exhibited as Exhibit B showing the names of Abinash Chandra Banarjee and Nani Bala Banarjee in respect of village-Nalbari Town, Ward No.4, under Police Station-Nalbari, Mouza-Khata under the then District-Kamrup. 24. The learned Tribunal noted that while the proceedee claimed that her father and grandfather, namely, Rukmini Goswami and Pranabananda Goswami were enlisted at Serial Nos.332 and 330 under 65 No. Barama Legislative Assembly of the then Kamrup district, it is seen that one “Rukuni Goswami”, son of “Pranaba” is enlisted as a voter in Ext.A at Serial No.332, the grandfather’s name “Pranabananda Goswami” is not enlisted in the voters list of 1971 as mentioned in the written statement as well as in evidence by way of affidavit. 25. However, what we have noted from the original records placed before us is that there is a photocopy of the certified copy of the voters list of 1971 showing the name of “Pranabananda Goswami” as the son of “Ishwar” under Serial No.330 in respect of village Lafakuchi, Mouza-Dakhin Baksa, P.S. Barama, under Circle Nalbari in the then Kamrup District. 25. However, what we have noted from the original records placed before us is that there is a photocopy of the certified copy of the voters list of 1971 showing the name of “Pranabananda Goswami” as the son of “Ishwar” under Serial No.330 in respect of village Lafakuchi, Mouza-Dakhin Baksa, P.S. Barama, under Circle Nalbari in the then Kamrup District. In fact, it is also mentioned in the written statement and in the evidence-in-chief of the petitioner to that effect and as such, we are of the view that there is evidence of entry of said name of “Pranabananda Goswami” in the aforesaid voters list of 1971. 26. The learned Tribunal noted that the proceedee had exhibited the voters list of 1997 as Exhibit C in respect of village Ambari of 63 No. of Chapaguri Legislative Assembly, Mouza -North Baksa, District -Nalbari (now Baksa) and the voters list of 2010 as Exhibit D where the proceedee’s father’s name has been shown as “Rukmini Goswami”, “son of Premananda” of village -Ambari, P.S. Barbari, District-Baksa, Assam. The learned Tribunal, however, held that the said “Rukuni Goswami”, “son of Pranaba” and “Rukmini Goswami”, “son of Premananda” are different persons having separate identities. 27. The learned Tribunal also observed that the proceedee in her written statement did not mention that her father had shifted to Ambari, Mouza-North Baksa, P.S. Barbari, under the then Kamrup District and her father was a voter in 1997 and 2010 in the village Ambari. The learned Tribunal also observed that these facts were mentioned for the first time in the evidence-in-affidavit, and it was the bounded duty of the proceedee to disclose all material particulars in written statement for proving her citizenship which was specially within her knowledge at the first instance and failure to disclose important material particulars in the written statement by itself raises a serious question about the citizenship status of the proceedee. 28. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid observations of the learned Tribunal. In our opinion, merely because certain facts have not been disclosed in the written statement, it cannot be a reason to draw any adverse inference. This Court had the occasion to deal with the said issue in Haidar Ali Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2021 (3) GLT 85 [WP(C) No.1818/2019, disposed of on 30.03.2021]. In our opinion, merely because certain facts have not been disclosed in the written statement, it cannot be a reason to draw any adverse inference. This Court had the occasion to deal with the said issue in Haidar Ali Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2021 (3) GLT 85 [WP(C) No.1818/2019, disposed of on 30.03.2021]. In the aforesaid case of Haidar Ali (supra), this Court held that no adverse inference can be drawn merely because certain facts were not disclosed at the time of filing of written statement. 29. In the present case, what we have noted is that, in the evidence-in-chief which was tendered by way of an affidavit on 13.12.2017, the proceedee/petitioner had stated that her father’s name is Rukmini Goswami, now deceased and he had migrated to India along with her grandfather, namely, Pranabananda Goswami from East Pakistan in the year 1959 due to communal disturbances in East Pakistan. They crossed over to India to take shelter due to religious persecution. First they took shelter at village-Salbari under the then P.S. Sorbhog, District-Kamrup. Later they shifted to village-Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama of the then District-Kamrup, Assam. She also stated that her grandfather had purchased a plot of land by registered sale deed on 23.03.1966 at Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama of the then District-Kamrup and the photocopy of the said sale deed was annexed as Annexure A to the said affidavit. The petitioner as a proceedee also stated that her father’s and grandfather’s names, Rukmini Goswami and Pranabananda Goswami were entered in the voters list of 1971 of 65 No. Barama LAC of the then Kamrup District with their names at Serial Nos.332 and 330 respectively of the said voters list. She also deposed that she got married to one Pradip Roy of village Kalahbhanga, Mouza D C Bausi, P.S. Barpeta Road under District-Barpeta, Assam in the year 1993 and her mother’s name is Minoti Goswami who was born at Nalbari Town under the then District Kamrup, Assam and maternal grandfather’s name is Abinash Chandra Banarjee and maternal grandmother is Nani Bala Banarjee whose names appeared in the voters list of 1965 under Nalbari LAC. A photocopy of certified copy of the voters list of 1965 in respect of Nalbari LAC was exhibited as Exhibit B. She also stated that her father along with his family members shifted to village-Ambari, Mouza-North Baksa, P.S. Barbari under the then District Kamrup, Assam from village-Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama, the then District Kamrup, Assam in the year 1978 and that her father’s name appeared in the voters lists of 1997 and 2010 at village-Ambari, Mouza-North Baksa, P.S. Barbari, District Nalbari (now Baksa), Assam under 63 No. Chapaguri LAC. Copies of the certified copies of the voters lists of 1997 and 2010 in respect of 63 No. Chapaguri LAC were exhibited as Exhibit C and Exhibit D. She also stated that identity cards were issued in the names of her father and mother by Election Commission of India, copies of which were annexed as Annexure E & F. She also stated that she was a student of Ambari LP School and the Headmaster of the said School issued one certificate in her name, a photocopy of the said School Certificate was exhibited as Exhibit G. She also stated that the Gaonburah of village Ambari issued a certificate to that effect that she was the daughter of Late Rukmini Goswami and Minoti Goswami which was exhibited as Exhibit H. She also stated that the said Gaonburah of Ambari village also issued a certificate that her mother Minoti Goswami is the daughter of Late Abinash Banarjee which was annexed as Annexure-I. The proceedee was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, the proceedee had stated as follows, “My name is Gouri Goswami Roy. My father’s name is Late Rukmini Roy. My father died in the year 2017. My mother’s name is Minati Goswami. I stay at Kalahbhanga. I was born at Lafakuchi. My father has migrated from East Pakistan to India. My father’s name is enrolled in the voters list of 1971. My husband’s name is Pradip Roy. I have a brother but he is mentally challenged. It is not true that I have come here to depose falsely.” There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that whatever the proceedee had stated in her evidence-in-chief are false. In other words, the facts as deposed by the proceedee in the evidence-in-chief have remained unchallenged. 30. I have a brother but he is mentally challenged. It is not true that I have come here to depose falsely.” There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that whatever the proceedee had stated in her evidence-in-chief are false. In other words, the facts as deposed by the proceedee in the evidence-in-chief have remained unchallenged. 30. Similarly, we have also noted that her mother, Minoti Goswami had tendered her evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit as DW2 on 17.02.2018. We have also gone through the evidence of her mother Minoti Goswami by way of affidavit dated 17.02.2018 in which she stated that her husband, namely, Rukmini Goswami migrated to India from East Pakistan along with her father-in-law, Pranabananda Goswami in the year 1959 due to communal disturbances in East Pakistan. They crossed over to India to take shelter due to religious persecution. She also stated that they first took shelter at village Salbari, the then P.S. Sorbogh under District Kamrup, Assam and later they shifted to village-Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama under the then District Kamrup. She stated that her father-in-law had purchased a plot of land by way of registered sale deed on 28.03.1966 at Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama, the then District Kamrup, Assam. She also stated that her husband’s and her father-in-law’s names were Rukmini Goswami and Pranabananda Goswami and were enlisted in the voters list of 1971 of 65 No. Barama Legislative Assemby Constituency of the then Kamrup District appearing at Serial Nos. 332 and 330 respectively. She also stated that in the voters list of 1971 the name of her husband was recorded to be a permanent resident of Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama under the then District Kamrup, Assam and a copy of certified copy of the voters list of 1971 was exhibited as Exhibit A. DW2 also stated that she was married to one Pradip Roy of village Kalahbhanga, Mouza-D C Bausi, P.S. Barpeta Road, District-Barpeta, Assam in the year 1993 and since then she has been residing in the above address. She also stated that she was born at Nalbari Town under the then District Kamrup, Assam and the names of her father, Abinash Chandra Banarjee and her mother, Nani Bala Banarjee appeared in the voters list of 1965. She also stated that she was born at Nalbari Town under the then District Kamrup, Assam and the names of her father, Abinash Chandra Banarjee and her mother, Nani Bala Banarjee appeared in the voters list of 1965. A photocopy of certified copy of voters list of 1965 in respect of Nalbari LAC was exhibited as Exhibit B. She also stated that her husband along with other family members shifted to village-Ambari, Mouza-North Baksa, P.S. Barbari under the then District Kamrup, Assam from village Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama, the then District-Kamrup, Assam in the year 1978. She also stated that her husband’s name appeared in the voters lists of 1997 and 2010 under village-Ambari, Mouza-North Baksa, P.S. Barbari, District-Nalbari (now Baksa), Assam under 63 No. Chapaguri Legislative Assembly Constituency. She also stated that she and her husband were issued identity cards by the Election Commissioner of India, photocopies of the said Identity Cards were exhibited as Annexure E & F. She also stated that her daughter was a student of Ambari L.P. School and the Headmaster of the said School had issued one certificate in her name. She also stated that a certificate was issued by the Gaonburah of village Ambari which was exhibited as Exhibit G. DW2 was subjected to cross-examination on 06.03.2018 and in the cross-examination she stated as follows, “My name is Minati Goswami. My husband’s name is Late Rukmini Goswami. There is no proceeding pending in my name. I am casting I am casting vote but I have not deposited any voters list in the Court today. My husband had expired two years ago. The name of my father-in-law is Pranabananda Goswami. I do not know what name of my father-in-law is written in the voters list of 2010. Gouri Roy is my own daughter. Now, my daughter lives in the village Kalahbhanga. The name of the husband of the 2nd party is Pradip Roy. I have nto mentioned in my affidavit about place of my residence. It is not true that I have come here to adduce false evidence.” 31. From perusal of the cross-examination of DW2, it is seen that what had been stated before the Tribunal in her affidavit-in-evidence had not been questioned or doubted, thus, uncontroverted. The testimony of the DW2 has not been shaken. 32. It is not true that I have come here to adduce false evidence.” 31. From perusal of the cross-examination of DW2, it is seen that what had been stated before the Tribunal in her affidavit-in-evidence had not been questioned or doubted, thus, uncontroverted. The testimony of the DW2 has not been shaken. 32. It is to be noted that DW2 appeared before the Tribunal as the mother of the proceedee. It is not the case of the State that the said Minoti Goswami was not the real mother as sought to be suggested before us now. We are unable to accept the said suggestion as no woman generally would come forward to claim that she is the mother of a person before a court of law. She testified before the Tribunal that the proceedee is her own daughter. There is not even a suggestion by the State that she is not the mother of the said proceedee. 33. Therefore, in our view, the testimony of a woman claiming to be the mother of a person cannot be brushed aside unless doubted or questioned. There is nothing to suggest from the evidence as discussed above that the claim of Minoti Goswami that she is the mother of the proceedee is false. 34. We will now refer to the school certificate issued by the Headmaster of MV School which the learned Tribunal did not believe. It was exhibited as Exhibit G. One Purnima Boro, the Headmistress of Amarpur Prathamik Bidyalaya was examined as a Court witness. She deposed that in the said certificate, the date of birth of the proceedee is not mentioned. But a careful reading of the certificate would show that in the certificate it is mentioned that as on the 1st January, 1984, age of the student is 9 years 2 months. The date of birth of the proceedee is to be accordingly ascertained. This is a practice which used to be followed in the educational institutions in the past. 35. Further, the learned Tribunal noted certain overwriting in the certificate. It may be noted that the certificate which was exhibited is the counter foil of the document which was already submitted by the proceedee during the verification process made by the competent authority before the proceeding was initiated. A copy of the counterfoil is found in the records. 35. Further, the learned Tribunal noted certain overwriting in the certificate. It may be noted that the certificate which was exhibited is the counter foil of the document which was already submitted by the proceedee during the verification process made by the competent authority before the proceeding was initiated. A copy of the counterfoil is found in the records. In the said counter foil, it is clearly mentioned that she completed her education in the said school on 31st December, 1983 and she passed Class I examination. The signature of the school Headmistress in the copy attached in the original record is shown to be the same Sarupoma Brahma which the school also produced. The Court witness, Purnima Boro who was examined on 11th May, 2018 stated that Exhibit G is the School certified issued by the said School. She stated that Exhibit K is the copy of counter foil and Exhibit K(1) is the counter foil of Exhibit G. Copy of K was furnished by the proceedee during the verification by the competent authority before the reference was made to the Tribunal. There is no overwriting in the year 1983 in the said copy furnished by the proceedee during the verification process and the contents of the certificate submitted during the proceeding are otherwise same and as such, it cannot be said that there was any manipulation in the entry of the certificate. 36. Coming to the certificate issued by the Gaonburah, the learned Tribunal observed that though the Gaonburah had stated in his deposition that he knew the proceedee and her father, he did not maintain a register and he wrote the certificate according to the request made by the proceedee. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal did not place reliance on the said certificate. 37. However, we are unable to agree with such conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal for the reason that merely because the Gaonburah did not maintain the register and he wrote the certificate on the request of the proceedee, it will not render his evidence that he knew the proceedee and her father as irrelevant or unreliable. Nobody can come to a Tribunal claiming to be a Gaonburah. Gaonburah is a person holding certain official position and discharging certain duties and responsibilities. Nobody can come to a Tribunal claiming to be a Gaonburah. Gaonburah is a person holding certain official position and discharging certain duties and responsibilities. It will be very difficult to accept that anybody can pretend to be a Goanburah and appear before the Tribunal without being detected. However, his credentials had not been questioned. The Government can always verify the identity of a Gaonburah from their own records as to whether he is a genuine Gaonburah or not, if it is doubted. A Gaonburah would have certain knowledge about the affairs of the village and the villagers. The Gaonburah had categorically stated that he knew the proceedee and that he also knew that the proceedee is a resident of the locality. He also categorically stated that he knew the father of the proceedee and that he died. He stated that he knew the father of the proceedee as a resident of his locality for the last 40-50 years. He also stated that the proceedee had been married to Kalahabhanga village. Therefore, merely because the Gaonburah did not bring the identity card or did not maintain the register cannot be a reason to disbelieve his testimony about the identity of the proceedee and her father. 38. Under the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the opinion of the learned Tribunal that the petitioner has failed to prove that she is an Indian. On the contrary, we are of the opinion that she has been able to adduce sufficient oral and material evidences to show that she is an Indian and not a foreigner. 39. We have also noted that the proceedee had made a very categorical statement that her father and grandfather had migrated from East Pakistan due to communal disturbances and religious persecution in East Pakistan. It is a historical fact that after Independence many Hindus who were living in the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) had been compelled to leave that country because of religious persecution and they took shelter in this country. The Government of India had been giving shelter to them had accepted such persons and also accepted as Indian citizens by issuing Certificates of Registration to such persons. From the records, it is evident that the father and grandfather of the petitioner had migrated from East Pakistan and came to India due to religious disturbances as testified by the proceedee as her mother. 40. From the records, it is evident that the father and grandfather of the petitioner had migrated from East Pakistan and came to India due to religious disturbances as testified by the proceedee as her mother. 40. This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in Uttam Ghosh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.93/2022] decided on 23.06.2022 in which it was observed as follows: “57. The fact that many persons like the present proceedee’s father who profess Hinduism as their religion had been subjected to persecution in the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh is a historical fact which has been acknowledged without any dispute from any quarter. This historical fact has been noted by the authorities as is clearly evident from the 2nd paragraph of the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” while introducing the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 which was subsequently passed by the Parliament and has received the assent of the President. This historical fact forms the basis of the aforesaid Amendment Act, relevant portions of which are reproduced hereinbelow: “The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 ……………………………………………………… STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955) was enacted to prove for acquisition and determination of Indian citizenship. 1………………………………. “2. It is a historical fact that trans-border migrant of population has been happening continuously between the territories of India and the areas presently comprised in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947. The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries. Some of them also have fears about such persecution in their day-to-day life where right to practice, profess and propagate their religion has been obstructed and restricted. Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter and continued to stay in India even if their travel documents have expired or they have incomplete or no documents. 3. ………………………. 4………………………….. ……………………..” 58. Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter and continued to stay in India even if their travel documents have expired or they have incomplete or no documents. 3. ………………………. 4………………………….. ……………………..” 58. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 after enactment has not yet been notified in the Official Gazette and hence yet not been implemented, and the vires of the Act has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, we are not relying on the provisions of the aforesaid Amendment Act. However, a reference is made only for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that many people belonging to different communities including the community to which the petitioner’s father belongs had faced persecution on the ground of religion compelling them to flee East Pakistan and take shelter in India.” 41. We are of the view that the State owes an obligation to see that such persons and their descendants who had fled from the then East Pakistan because of religious persecution are not treated as the foreigners for technical and unreasonable grounds which we have found to be so in the present case. Our country has a duty to honour its commitment to keep them safe in this country and certainly, the State had certain obligation to rebut the evidence of the petitioner if the State had doubted the plea of the petitioner, which, unfortunately, has not been done in the present case. 42. In the present case, the petitioner as a proceedee has made a categorical statement that her father and grandfather had migrated from East Pakistan in the year 1959 due to communal disturbance in East Pakistan and they crossed over to Indian to take shelter due to religious persecution. It has been also submitted that her grandfather Pranabananda Goswami had purchased a plot of land by way of registered sale deed on 28.03.1966 at Lafakuchi, Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama, the then District Kamrup, Assam. A photocopy of the registered sale deed was also filed before the Tribunal as Annexure A which is on record. However, there is no reference or discussion of the said document by the Tribunal. A photocopy of the registered sale deed was also filed before the Tribunal as Annexure A which is on record. However, there is no reference or discussion of the said document by the Tribunal. The copy of the said document, i.e. the registered sale deed dated 28.03.1966 would clearly show that the petitioner’s grandfather, Pranabanada had purchased a plot of land in the year 1966 located at village-Lafakuchi of Mouza-South Baksa, P.S. Barama under the then Kamrup District, Assam. The specific assertion of the proceedee has not been challenged and as such, we find no reason to disbelieve such a categorical stand taken by the proceedee before the Tribunal. 43. We are, accordingly, of the view that the petitioner is indeed the daughter of Rukmini Goswami, who in turn, was the son of Pranabananda Goswami who was a resident and citizen of India having migrated from the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh in the year 1959 due to religious persecution and settled in India. It has been provided under Section 6A(2) that such persons of Indian origin who had come before 1st day of January, 1966 to Assam from the Specified Territory and who had been ordinarily resident in Assam since the dates of their entry into Assam shall deemed to be citizen of India as from 1st day of January, 1966. In our opinion, there are sufficient evidences on record to show that the petitioner’s father who entered into along with grandparents from East Pakistan, a part of the Specified Territory into Assam in the year 1959 and had been staying in Assam since then and as such, her father is an Indian citizen and as a consequence, the petitioner also would be an Indian citizen being the daughter of an Indian citizen. There is also no finding to the effect that the petitioner’s mother, who the petitioner’s father had married after entering India, is a foreigner. There is evidence also to show that petitioner’s mother is also an Indian. 44. For the reasons discussed above, we are satisfied that the petitioner has been able to prove her case on the basis of preponderance of probability based on the aforesaid evidences adduced that she is an Indian and not a foreigner. There is evidence also to show that petitioner’s mother is also an Indian. 44. For the reasons discussed above, we are satisfied that the petitioner has been able to prove her case on the basis of preponderance of probability based on the aforesaid evidences adduced that she is an Indian and not a foreigner. We have reproduced exhaustively the testimonies of the petitioner and her mother and the unimpeached documents exhibited before the Tribunal which clearly show that the petitioner is an Indian and not a foreigner as alleged. 45. Accordingly, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.8th Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 174/17 [IM(D)T Case No. 6206/B/98] and declare the petitioner, Smt. Gauri Goswami Roy, daughter of Late Rukmini Goswami and wife of Sri Pradip Roy, resident of village -Kalahbhanga, Mouza-DC Bausi, P.S. Barpeta Road, District Barpeta, Assam to be a citizen of India. 46. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. 47. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.