JUDGMENT : [N. Kotiswar Singh, J.] 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No.3. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal-4th, Goalpara, Assam, in F.T. Case No.336/2016, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receipt of the summon from the Tribunal, the petitioner filed her written statement, in which the petitioner had given details of her family including about her father, grandfather, grandmother and also about the birth certificate issued by the competent authority. The petitioner also filed the birth certificate in original issued by the competent authority. The petitioner also filed the school certificate issued by the Headmaster stating that the petitioner had passed Class-IV examination in Sarkar Para L.P. School and as per the admission register, her age was 26 years 11 months 15 days. The petitioner also has submitted different voters lists such as voters list of 1966, in which the name of her grandfather Fazal Hoque appears. Similarly, voters list of 1970 was also filed by the petitioner, in which the name of her grandmother Sakina Khatun as the wife of Fazal Hoque, her grandfather is also shown. The petitioner also has filed the voters list of 1979, in which the name of her grandmother is shown as the wife of Fazal Hoque. The petitioner also filed the voters list of 1985, in which the names of her parents along with her grandmother are shown. The petitioner also filed the voters list of 1997, in which the names of her parents are shown. The petitioner also filed a certificate, issued by the Secretary of the 34 No Kharmuza Gaon Panchayat. 4. In addition to the aforesaid documentary evidences, the petitioner also examined herself. The petitioner also filed the voters list of 1997, in which the names of her parents are shown. The petitioner also filed a certificate, issued by the Secretary of the 34 No Kharmuza Gaon Panchayat. 4. In addition to the aforesaid documentary evidences, the petitioner also examined herself. He also examined her father Rajab Ali, one Abdul Karim, who was the Panchayat Secretary, one Sofiul Islam, an employee of the office of the Registrar of Birth and Death, who issued the birth certificate and one Manoj Das, an employee of the Election Office of Goalpara district, who had proved the voters lists of 1966, 1970, 1985 and 1997. Accordingly, it has been submitted that there are sufficient documentary evidences to show that the petitioner is an Indian and not a foreigner. It has been submitted that however, unfortunately, the learned Tribunal has not accepted the said evidences as worthy of believing. 5. It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal did not rely on the said birth certificate on the ground that as per the witness examined by the petitioner, the said certificate was issued without any inquiry and also could not disclose the basis on which the said certificate was issued. The learned Tribunal also noted that the said certificate was issued on 20.08.2015 i.e. after 25 years of the alleged birth. The learned Tribunal also observed that the petitioner's projected father Rajab Ali, who was examined as DW-2, clearly stated that he could not remember the date and year of birth of the proceedee and as such, the learned Tribunal was not inclined to believe the said birth certificate. 6. As regards the certificate issued by the school, the learned Trial Court held that the said certificate was not proved by examining the issuing authority. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the aforesaid documentary evidences do not clearly establish linkage of the petitioner with her ancestors and in any case, she could not establish their existence beyond 1966. 7. As regards the school certificate issued by the Headmaster of the Sarkar Para L.P. School, the learned Tribunal held the same to be not proved as the issuing authority was not examined. 7. As regards the school certificate issued by the Headmaster of the Sarkar Para L.P. School, the learned Tribunal held the same to be not proved as the issuing authority was not examined. Coming to the voters lists, the learned Tribunal held that the proceedee could only produce the voters list of 1985 (Exbt.-C) and voters list of 1997 (Exbt.-D), which do not in any way connect the persons mentioned in Exbts.-A and B (Voters lists of 1966 and 1970). Thus the learned Tribunal held that these voters lists are not reliable evidence to link the name of Rajab Ali with the persons mentioned in Exbts.-A and B. The learned Tribunal also observed that in his evidence, Rajab Ali (DW-2) did not utter a single word about the existence of his linear ancestors as mentioned in Exbts.-A and B nor he explained how his name came to be included in Exbts.-C and D (Voters' lists of 1985 and 1997). 8. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal held that the evidence of the petitioner coupled with the aforesaid documents do not appear to be trustworthy and as such, there is no relation of the present petitioner with the said persons and hence, the relationship of the present petitioner with the said persons is not proved and accordingly, held that the petitioner was not born and brought up by genuine Indian parents in Indian soil and accordingly, held that she had failed to prove that she is not a foreigner. 9. Mr. J. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, has submitted that as regards the birth certificate which was alleged to have been issued on 20.08.2015, the evidence of Sofiul Islam, an employee of the Registrar of Birth and Death, who was examined to prove the said certificate, would show that no inquiry was conducted before the said certificate was issued. It is also stated in the cross-examination that he does not know how the date of birth was mentioned in the certificate. The said Sofiul Islam in the cross-examination also stated that no documents were produced before the said certificate was issued. Mr. Payeng submits that on perusal of the evidence of Sofiul Islam, it would be seen that there was no inquiry held before the said birth certificate was issued as mentioned by him in his cross-examination. Mr. The said Sofiul Islam in the cross-examination also stated that no documents were produced before the said certificate was issued. Mr. Payeng submits that on perusal of the evidence of Sofiul Islam, it would be seen that there was no inquiry held before the said birth certificate was issued as mentioned by him in his cross-examination. Mr. Payeng further submits that the said Sofiul Islam also stated in the cross-examination that he does not know how the said date of birth was entered in the certificate and as such, it has been submitted that if no inquiry was held before the said certificate was issued, the same cannot be said to be reliable, more so when the said certificate was issued only in the year 2015 when the petitioner was allegedly born in the year 1988 and as such, the said certificate issued after such a long gap of period cannot be relied upon. 10. As regards the observation of the learned Tribunal that the school certificate relied by the petitioner was not proved by examining the issuing authority, Mr. Payeng submits that there is no illegality in the said finding in as much as the said certificate not being a public document was required to be proved by examining the issuing authority. Further, the said school certificate was also issued on 24.06.2015 i.e. more than 17 years and as such, this document could not be relied upon. Mr. Payeng submits that since the said certificate carries the State Emblem, as held by this Court in a number of decisions, such a certificate is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be acted upon. As regards the voters lists, Mr. Payeng further submits that the finding by the learned Tribunal that the proceedee could only produce voters lists of 1985 and 1997, and these were in no way connected with the persons mentioned in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 cannot be faulted with as the petitioner has failed to prove the link between Rajab Ali who the petitioner claims to be her father with the aforesaid persons, namely, Fazal Hoque and Sakina Khatun. 11. 11. As regards the evidence of Secretary of Kharmuza Gaon Panchayat, the learned Tribunal observed that in his cross-examination he stated that he had no personal knowledge about the family of the proceedee nor maintained any official record nor any book of record and the said certificate was issued in the year 2015-16 without issuing any memo number or issue number and he also stated that such a certificate was only for the purpose of use for NRC. Mr. Payeng submits that in view of the observation of the learned Tribunal that the said certificate was issued only on the basis of application filed by the father of the petitioner and by looking into the voters list of 1966 of the grandfather, it cannot said to be a reliable document. It has been submitted that such an observation cannot said to be perverse or unreasonable. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, we would like to make the following observations. 13. The learned Tribunal after examining the voters lists of 1966 and 1970, which were exhibited as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, observed that in the aforesaid voters lists of 1966 and 1970, the name of one Fajal Hoque, son of Moniruddin, grandfather of the proceedee was mentioned. The learned Tribunal also observed that in the voters list of 1979 (Xerox copy) the name of one Sakina Khatun Bewa, wife of Fajal Hoque appears. However, the names of other relatives were not mentioned which appeared in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970. 14. As regards Exhibit C, the voters list of 1985, the learned Tribunal observed that in Exhibit C, the names of Sakina Khatun Bewa, wife of Fajal Hoque and Rajab Ali, son of Fajal Hoque appeared along with some other relatives but the proceedee could not bring any reasonable explanation as to why the name of Sakina Khatun Newar did not appear in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 along with other family members, if Rojob Ali is to be connected with the legal representatives of Fajal Hoque. 15. Further, the learned Tribunal observed that the aforesaid Xerox copy of the voters list of 1979 is not admissible in law. 16. 15. Further, the learned Tribunal observed that the aforesaid Xerox copy of the voters list of 1979 is not admissible in law. 16. As regards Exhibit D, the voters list of 1997, learned Tribunal observed that it is in no way connected to the persons mentioned in Exhibit A and Exhibit B and also there is no evidence to prove the link with the name of Rojob Ali mentioned in Exhibit A and Exhibit B i.e. voters lists of 1966 and 1970. 17. Learned Tribunal also noted that in his evidence as DW2, Rojob Ali did not utter a single word about the existence of his lineal ancestors in Exhibit A and B nor inclusion of his name in the Exhibit C and D except for stating that the proceedee is his daughter. 18. Learned Tribunal held that the evidence of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and the Certificate thereof is not reliable. The learned Tribunal also held that the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth which was exhibited as Exhibit E could not be relied on as the same was issued without any enquiry. 19. As regards the certificate issued by the Sankarpara L.P. School which was exhibited as Exhibit F, the learned Tribunal held that the same was not proved by examining the issuing authority. 20. While making the aforesaid observations, the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration certain aspects. 21. On perusal of the voters lists of 1966, 1970 and 1979 which have been relied by the petitioner, the following facts can be noted. 22. As regards the certified copy of voters list of 1966 which was exhibited as Exhibit A, it is seen that it contains the name of Fajal Hoque as son of Manir Uddin. The said voters list relates to 45 No. Goalpara East Legislative Assembly Constituency, District Goalpara, Sub-Division – Goalpara, P.S. Lakhipur, Village- (315) Deudhuturi, Circle- Balijana, P.O. Kharmuza. In the aforesaid voters list of 1966, the name of Fazal Hoque appears with other two persons, namely, Aynal Hoque, son of Manir Uddin and Moyman Nessa, wife of Manir Uddin. 23. Similarly, in the certified copy of the voters list of 1970, the name of Fazal Hoque appears as son of Manir Uddin. In the aforesaid voters list of 1966, the name of Fazal Hoque appears with other two persons, namely, Aynal Hoque, son of Manir Uddin and Moyman Nessa, wife of Manir Uddin. 23. Similarly, in the certified copy of the voters list of 1970, the name of Fazal Hoque appears as son of Manir Uddin. The said voters list of 1970 relates to 45 No. East Goalpara Legislative Assembly Constituency, District- Gaolpara, Sub-Division Gaolpara, Village-(315) Deudhuturi, Circle- Balijana, P.O. Kharmuza and P.S. Lakhipur. The said voters list of 1970 also shows the name of Fazal Hoque along with Aynal Hoque and Moyman Nessa. The Part number is also same in both the voters lists of 1966 and 1970, i.e. part No.201. 24. The petitioner had also exhibited another voters list of 1985, Exhibit D wherein the name of Rajab Ali, the projected father of the petitioner appears. The voters list of 1985 also includes the names of Sakina Khatun who the petitioner claims to be her grandmother. 25. In the evidence-in-chief, the proceedee annexed a xerox copy of voters list of 1979 in which her grandmother Sakina Khatun has been shown as Sakina Khatun Bewa in respect of village-Deudhuturi, P.S. Lakhipur, Circle-Balijana, Sub-Division-Goalpara under 38 No. Gaolpara West Legislative Assembly Constituency. 26. Though the learned Tribunal had not given much reliance on the said voters list of 1979 on the ground that it is a xerox copy, yet, we have noted that the said voters list of 1979 relates to same Deudhuturi village under the same Lakhipur Police Station and same Circle Balajana and same district of Goalpara as in the case of voters lists of 1966 and 1970. This is a voters list which the authorities could have easily verified. 27. We have also noted that in the voters list of 1985 which has been relied by the proceedee as having the names of her parents, Rajab Ali and Fatema Khatun, their names appear in respect of same village Deudhuturi, same Circle Balijana and same district Goalpara. In the voters list of 1997, the names of the proceedee’s father and mother appeared as Rajab Ali, son of Fajal Hoque and Fatema Khatun, wife of Rajab Ali in respect of same village Deudhuturi, District Goalpara, Circle Balijana, respectively. 28. In the voters list of 1997, the names of the proceedee’s father and mother appeared as Rajab Ali, son of Fajal Hoque and Fatema Khatun, wife of Rajab Ali in respect of same village Deudhuturi, District Goalpara, Circle Balijana, respectively. 28. Thus, there is consistency at least as far as the names of village and district is concerned, in all the voters lists of 1966, 1970, 1979, 1985 and 1997. It is not the case that the projected parents and grandparents of the proceedee are residents of different districts, which could have cast some doubt on their identity. The fact that the parents and grandparents stay in the same village indicates the genuineness of the claim of the proceedee. Thus, the State could have easily verified from the records also, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 , in paragraph 26 of the said decision, which is reproduced herein below : “26. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 16 of 55 under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 29. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 29. We have also noted that the said Rajab Ali, who the petitioner projected as her father also appeared before the Tribunal who testified as DW2. 30. As far as Rajab Ali, DW2, the projected father of the proceedee is concerned, in the cross-examination, nothing has been suggested to show that he is not the father of the proceedee. The question asked and answer given by the said Rajab Ali in the cross-examination reads as follows: “I have not submitted any document relating to land property in the Court. I know the family of Ajupha Khatun properly. The proceedee is my daughter. I do not remember the date of birth of my daughter but the proof of birth has been submitted to the Court.” 31. From the deposition of the DW-2 in the cross-examination, as quoted above, what can be understood is that he had not submitted any land document in the Court and he did not remember the date of birth of his daughter but he has submitted the relevant document relating to her birth in the Court. But there is nothing to suggest that he is not the father of the proceedee. No such question was even asked. 32. We doubt, merely because a witness or a proceedee has not produced the land document, it would be sufficient to draw an adverse inference that he is not an Indian. From the records, it appears that the said Rajab Ali is an illiterate person as he put his thumb impression and if an illiterate person does not remember the date of birth of his daughter, that cannot be a reason to draw any adverse inference about the identity of his daughter. Sometimes, the illiterate rural people only have knowledge of the proximate age of other children and do not remember the exact date of birth. Though the father of the proceedee, DW2, had stated that he had submitted the proof of date of birth of his daughter to the Court, the learned Tribunal, however, did not believe the same to be reliable. There is also no finding that the said certificate was forged or not genuine. Though the father of the proceedee, DW2, had stated that he had submitted the proof of date of birth of his daughter to the Court, the learned Tribunal, however, did not believe the same to be reliable. There is also no finding that the said certificate was forged or not genuine. The learned Tribunal did not place much reliance on the birth certificate issued on the ground that the said certificate was issued without any proper enquiry. 33. In our opinion, merely because the birth certificate is not proved, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the proceedee is a foreigner, more so, when the proceedee and her projected father appeared before the Tribunal and the assertion of the projected father of the proceedee that he is the father of the proceedee has not been questioned at all. 34. As far as the other certificate issued by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat is concerned, the issuing authority had deposed before the Tribunal. What he stated in brief is that he issued the certificate and he works in Panchayat and he issued it while serving in the office of the Gram Panchayat and he was in the Panchayat from May 2013 till 31st October, 2016. He issued the certificate in terms of the application submitted by the father of the proceedee based on the voters lists of 1966 and 2016. He identified the issue number of the certificate. A marriage certificate was also annexed to the application submitted. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had issued the said certificate in connection with NRC and he issued the certificate by referring to the voters list. In his cross-examination, nothing has been suggested that the said certificate had been fraudulently obtained. 35. In other words, the correctness of the said certificate issued by the Secretary Kharmuja Gram Panchayat has not been questioned. 36. Under the circumstances, we are unable to take the view as had been taken by the learned Tribunal that the said certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat cannot be relied upon. 37. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the matter would be required to be re-considered by the learned Tribunal in the light of the observations made above by us. 38. 37. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the matter would be required to be re-considered by the learned Tribunal in the light of the observations made above by us. 38. Accordingly, we allow this petition by remanding the matter to the learned Foreigners Tribunal-4th, Goalpara, Assam for reconsideration as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. For reasons discussed above, we set aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal-4th, Goalpara in F.T. Case No.336/2016. 39. The proceedee is directed to appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal-4th, Goalpara, Assam within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 40. Learned Tribunal, will accordingly, after hearing the proceedee and the State again, pass a fresh opinion as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence on record as discussed above. 41. We also make it clear that till such consideration is made by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner will be allowed to remain on bail as directed by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2017 on the same terms and conditions. 42. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 43. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.