JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choduhury, learned ASGI for respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned opinion dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No.7th at Lanka, Nagaon in F.T./L/Case No.1400/2017 [arising out of IM(D)T Case No.75/2002] by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. Upon receipt of summon from the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No.7 in the above referred proceeding, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement along with supporting documents. The petitioner examined himself as DW1 and also examined one neighbour, namely, Md. Jabedur Rahman as DW2. 4. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced and documents relied on by the petitioner held that the petitioner had failed to discharge his statutory burden of proof that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner as mandates under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 and accordingly declared him a foreigner under Section 2(i)(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 who has illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 without any valid documents. 5. In the written statement filed before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner claimed that he is an Indian by birth and his parents were also Indian. He also stated that he was born and brought up at Hatikhali under Murajhar P.S. in Nagaon district and thereafter, shifted his residence from Hatikhali to village Oksek Pather under Murajhar P.S. in the district of Nagaon, Assam. 6. The petitioner had projected one Abdul Subhan Miyan @ Abdul Subhan @ Abdul Suban @ Abudus Subhan as his father and one Abeda Khatun @ Abdun Nessa @ Abdun Nessa Khatun as his mother, respectively. 7. 6. The petitioner had projected one Abdul Subhan Miyan @ Abdul Subhan @ Abdul Suban @ Abudus Subhan as his father and one Abeda Khatun @ Abdun Nessa @ Abdun Nessa Khatun as his mother, respectively. 7. According to the petitioner, the name of the parents of the petitioner appear in the voters list of 1966 under 93 No. Hojai LAC as Mu Abdul Subhan, Son of Tuti Miyan and Mussa Abeda Khatun, Wife of Abdul Subjan vide Serial Nos.298 and 299 respectively in Part No.90 of village Hatikhali, P.S. Murajhar, District Nagaon, Assam and the names of the parents of the petitioner also appeared in the voters list of 1970 under the same Legislative Assembly Constituency. 8. As regards the aforesaid two voters lists which were relied upon by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal made an observation in para No.8 of the impugned opinion that it is worth mentioning that no door to door enumeration was carried out for the period 1966-1970 and accordingly, every voters details should be same though the Serial numbers may differ at times. 9. Learned Tribunal also accordingly observed that in the said voters lists of 1966 and 1970 which were exhibited as Exts.1 and 2, the part number is different and in the voters list of 1966, there is no mention of House Number and accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the said exhibits, Exts.1 and 2 cannot be relied upon. 10. As regards this finding, we are unable to agree with the same for the following reasons. First of all, the State has not led any evidence to the fact that there was no door to door enumeration carried out during the period 1966-1970 and as such, the said finding is certainly not based on evidence. Secondly, merely because the Part Number is different in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 of the village, it does not ipso facto lead to the inference that these villages are different. 11. What is to be noted is that the village name remains the same and the Police Station and Mouza also remain the same and so is the Legislative Assembly Constituency. 12. 11. What is to be noted is that the village name remains the same and the Police Station and Mouza also remain the same and so is the Legislative Assembly Constituency. 12. If the aforesaid voters lists are certified copies which the petitioner claims to be, and if the genuineness of the same had not been questioned, merely because the Part Number of the village is different, cannot be a ground to reject these two documents, i.e. certified copies of voters lists of 1966 and 1970. 13. Further the voters lists of 1977 and 1979 which were exhibited as Exts.3 and 4 relied on by the petitioner was also not considered reliable by the learned Tribunal. In the voters list of 1979, the name of the petitioner’s father is shown as Abdul Subhal, son of Tuti Miya, aged 55 years and the resident of village Hatikhali and the mother’s name has been shown as Abdun Nessa, wife of Abdul Subhal, aged 35 years. Similarly, in the voters list of 1979, the name of the petitioner’s projected father has been shown as Aa Subahan, son of Titu Miya, aged 55 years and mother has been shown as wife of A: Subham aged 35 years. 14. Since in both the voters lists the age of the parents has been shown to be same as 55 years and 35 years respectively, the learned Tribunal declined to believe these voters lists on the ground that the parents do not apparently grow within two years. The learned Tribunal also observed that in the earlier voters list of 1970, the age of the parents were shown as 61 years and 46 years and as such, in view of the aforesaid discrepancies in the age of the parents of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal declined to accept these documents to be genuine ones to establish the identity of the person concerned. 15. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal appears to have taken hyper technical view of the voters lists. It is true that there is variation in the age of the projected parents of the petitioner. However, it is also a known fact that the voters lists do not indicate the correct age of the persons. 15. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal appears to have taken hyper technical view of the voters lists. It is true that there is variation in the age of the projected parents of the petitioner. However, it is also a known fact that the voters lists do not indicate the correct age of the persons. We are of the view that merely because of the aforesaid discrepancies, these voters lists ought not have been rejected, as in other parameters of the voters list, these are same viz. the names and village etc. 16. Voters list of 1977 relied on by the petitioner and exhibited as Ext.3 was in respect of village Hatikhali under Murajhar Police Station, Part No.52 of 90 No. Jamunamukh Legislative Assembly Constituency. Similarly, voters list of 1979 which was relied upon is related to Hatikhali of Part No.52 of 90 No. Jamunamukh Legislative Assembly Constituency and as such, we are of the view that mere discrepancies in the age of the persons will not render the said voters lists unreliable, as in other parameters, similarities are observed. 17. The voters list of 1997 in which the name of the petitioner and his wife appeared was not considered by the learned Tribunal on the ground that it does not form any link with his parents and this document is a post 1971 document. 18. We are again unable to agree with the aforesaid view taken by the learned Tribunal. The said voters list of 1979 relates to the same village Hatikhali and same Police Station Murajhar and District Nagaon under the same 90 No. Jamunamukh Legislative Assembly Constituency where the petitioner had shown inclusion of the projected parent’s name in the same village. This will show the consistency of the plea of the petitioner. 19. The petitioner had been able to show inclusion of the names of the projected parents in the same village, and if the petitioner is showing that he is a resident of the same village, under the same Legislative Assembly Constituency, we certainly see a link between the petitioner and his projected parents. 20. Merely because the voters list of 1997 is a post 1971 document, it will not render it as not relevant. Certainly, the said document can be used to establish petitioner’s link with his projected parents. 21. 20. Merely because the voters list of 1997 is a post 1971 document, it will not render it as not relevant. Certainly, the said document can be used to establish petitioner’s link with his projected parents. 21. It may be also noted that the learned Tribunal also did not accept some of the documents relating to land i.e. Jamabandi copy, land revenue paid receipts, General Kharij Patta etc. which were exhibited as Ext.6, 7, 8, 8(a), 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 respectively as not reliable on the ground that the land which belonged to the father of the petitioner had been already sold and the petitioner now stays in the residence of his father-in-law and as such, these land documents cannot form the basis and does not have evidentiary value in support of his linkage for his claim as an Indian citizen. 22. We are unable to agree with this approach of the learned Tribunal also. Petitioner possessed certain land which he could trace back to a period prior to 1971. Whether the said land has been retained or sold is immaterial. What is material is whether the petitioner possessed certain land prior to 1971 and as such, we are of the view that the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not correct. 23. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidences on record from correct perspective as discussed above. We are accordingly of the opinion that the learned Tribunal will be required to reassess the evidences adduced by the petitioner and pass a fresh opinion as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by us as above. 24. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No.7th at Lanka, Nagaon in F.T./L/Case No.1400/2017 [arising out of IM(D)T Case No.75/2002] and the matter is remanded to the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No.7 at Lanka for re-consideration and passing a fresh opinion as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence so adduced in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. 25. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Tribunal within a period of 1 (one) month from today. 25. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Tribunal within a period of 1 (one) month from today. 26. Petitioner will continue to remain on bail on similar terms and conditions as directed by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2017 till a fresh opinion is rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No.7th at Lanka as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner. 27. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 28. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.