JUDGMENT : S.P.Khaund, J. 1. Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. The petitioner in this case is Jubbar Ali @ Abdul Jubbar who has filed his application, challenging the opinion dated 06-12-2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon no. 2, Abhayapuri in connection with BNGN/FT-2/APR/124/2016 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was termed to be a foreigner/ illegal migrant of post 25-03-1971 stream. 3. It is submitted that on receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the petitioner filed his written reply with substantiating documents and contested the proceeding. He also adduced his evidence-in-affidavit as DW-1. It is contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The Tribunal took note of negligible discrepancies with respect to the names and ages of the petitioner's father and grandfather. The Tribunal has ignored the fact that the names and ages of the electors are recorded by the electoral authority and incorrect recording of names and ages of electors are common. In addition, it is to be noted that the voters lists exhibited by the petitioner were translated copies from vernacular and thus are prone to incorrect recording of names and spellings and so the Tribunal in an apathetic manner discarded the evidence of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has quoted Section 3 (1) of the CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1955 as amended, which reads as follows: “a) on or after 26th day of January, 1950 but before 1st day of July, 1987; b) on or after 1st day of July, 1987 but before the commencement of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and either of whose parents is citizen of India at the time of his birth; c) on or after the Citizenship (amendment) Act, 2003 1) both of his parents are citizen of India ii) one of whose parents is a citizen of India and other is not an illegal migrant at the time of his birth shall be citizen of India by birth.” 5. It has been contended that justice has been denied to him as he has been declared to be a foreign national, despite the fact that he was born in India. The remaining part of the petitioner's argument for the sake of brevity shall be discussed at the appropriate stage. 6. Per contra, it is contended by Mr. G. Sharma, learned counsel for the FT matters that the petitioner submitted two voters lists of 1966 and 1970 and thereafter the voters list of 1985 has been submitted. The gap between 1970 and 1985 is 15 years, which cannot be stretched to the extent to establish the linkage of the petitioner with his father and grandfather. 7. It is contended by learned counsel Mr. G.Sharma that there are too many discrepancies in the names as well as in the ages of the petitioner’s projected father and grandfather in most of the voters list relied upon by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s mother’s name figures for the first time in the voter’s list of 1985 despite the fact that his father’s name appears in the voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970. The discrepancies in the age of Shukiton Nessa in different voters list cannot be ignored. If the discrepancies are taken into consideration, the petitioner's case has no leg to stand. The remaining part of the argument on behalf of the respondent authorities will be discussed at the appropriate stage. Decision of the learned Tribunal 8. It has been held by the learned Tribunal that “ the petitioner stated that his father's name is late Karim Box Sheikh @ Abdul Karim of village Kalikura Part-1 and his grandfather's name is recorded in the voters list of 1966 whereas his father's name is recorded in the voters list of 1970 along with his grandfather's name. The petitioner as O.P has also stated that his parents names have been recorded in the voters list of 1985 at Kalikura part-II and his brother's name has been recorded along with his parents’ names in the voters list of 1989. The petitioner further stated that his name is recorded in the voters list of 1997 along with his mother and so on and so forth. The petitioner further stated that his name is recorded in the voters list of 1997 along with his mother and so on and so forth. It was noted by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner/ O.P submitted a gift deed executed by his father and the donee were his mother, sisters and the petitioner himself. He obtained a jamabandi of the landed property under the Srijangram Revenue Circle. The petitioner/ O.P claims that as the Government has issued a voter ID, PAN card and next of Kin Certificate in his favour, he is a citizen of India. 8.1. However, the Tribunal did not accept O.P’s/petitioner’s documents as well as his evidence. The Tribunal held that the O.P/petitioner did not disclose his mother's name. The Voters list of 1966 and 1970 marked as Exhibit- 1 and Exhibit- 2 are the voters list of village Kalikura part-II wherein the names of the voters Miyajan Haji, Kajoli Bibi, Korim Boxha, s/o Miyajan appears. 8.2. On the contrary, in the Exhibit-3 Voters list, the names of voters, Karim Sheikh, s/o Hajimiya and Shukiton Nessa appears. This is a translated copy of the voters list of 1985 of village Kalikura part-1. It was held by the Tribunal that although the petitioner stated that in this voters list, his parents’ names are recorded, the age of Karim Sheikh, son of Hajimiya is recorded as 70 years whereas in the voters list of 1970, the age of Korim Boxha is recorded as 44 years (instead of 59 years). Moreover, the village is shown as Kalikura part-II in the voters list of 1966 and 1970 (Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2). 8.3. Again the petitioner's name is recorded along with the name of his parents in Exhibit-4 which is a voters list of 1989 pertaining to Village Kalikura Part-1. In this voters list, the petitioner's name is recorded as Abdul Jubbar and his father's name is recorded as Abdul Karim along with the names of his mother and brothers. Owing to the differences in the village and the discrepancies in the names of the petitioner’s father in the voters list of 1989 vis-a-vis the voters list of 1966 and 1970, the Tribunal did not accept the voters list of 1989 i.e. Exhibit-4. 8.4. Owing to the differences in the village and the discrepancies in the names of the petitioner’s father in the voters list of 1989 vis-a-vis the voters list of 1966 and 1970, the Tribunal did not accept the voters list of 1989 i.e. Exhibit-4. 8.4. The Tribunal also did not accept the voters list of 1997 marked as Exhibit-5 as his mother's age was recorded as 55 years whereas in Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-4, the age of the petitioner's mother was recorded as 70 years and 60 years. The Tribunal also did not accept the voters list of 2005, 2010 and 2016 and the death certificate marked as Exhibit-9 which reveals that his father died in the year 1993 whereas the death certificate was obtained by the petitioner/OP on 20.07.2017. The certificate was also not accepted as the concerned authority issuing the certificate was not examined as a witness. The Jamabandi copy marked as Exhibit-10 was also not accepted by the learned Tribunal as a valid piece of evidence as the mutation of Abdul Jabbar s/o Korim Box Sheikh is shown in place of Abdul Karim of Srijangram Revenue Circle, village Kalikura Part-II and date is recorded as 11.10.2017. The gift deed marked as Exhibit-11 was also not accepted as valid evidence by the Tribunal as the gift deed reflects that Korim Boksa executed the registered deed on 1983 and this deed is not sufficient to prove citizenship status of a person in India. It was held by the learned Tribunal that Exhibit-13 is the PAN Card and is not a proof of citizenship. Exhibit-14 is a computer generated Next Kin certificate. Analysis:- 9. After scrutinizing the decision of the Tribunal, it is held that the learned Tribunal has recorded sound reasonings while deciding the case and there appears to be no ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal. We find force in the argument of learned Standing Counsel Mr. G.Sarma that discrepancies emerges in the age reflected in the voters list of Shukiton Nessa as well as in the age of Karim Box Sheikh. The argument that the date and time of death of Karim Box Sheikh was not reflected in the written reply also cannot be ignored. The death certificate was issued in the year 2017. It is also argued that the Jamabandi was created after collecting the death certificate. The argument that the date and time of death of Karim Box Sheikh was not reflected in the written reply also cannot be ignored. The death certificate was issued in the year 2017. It is also argued that the Jamabandi was created after collecting the death certificate. At serial no.2 of the Jamabandi of village Kalikura part-II, the name of Shukiton Nessa appears but her husband's name appears as Abdul Karim and not Karim Box Sheikh, whereas her name does not figure in the remark column along with other co-pattadars. 10. The glaring discrepancies in the names and age of the petitioner's grandfather, father and the petitioner's mother can be brought to notice from the voter's list extracted herein below verbatim. Voter's list of 1966 is extracted herein below : VOTERS LIST : 1966 District: Goalpara, Sub-Division : Goalpara, Police Station: Uttar Salmara, Name of Village :(307) Kalikura Pt. – II, Circle: Srijangram, P.O: Madrassapara Sl. No. House No. Name of Elector’s Father/Husband’s Name M/F Age 14 6 Miyajan Haji Rofu Sheikh M 75 15 6 Kajoli Bibi Miyajan F 60 16 6 Korim Boxha Miyajan M 40 The extract copy of voter's list of 1970 is as follows : VOTERS LIST : 1970 District: Goalpara, Sub-Division : Goalpara, Police Station: Abhayapuri, Polling Station No. 81, Kalikura L.P. School Name of Village : (307) Kalikura Pt. – II, P.O. : Madrasapara Sl. No. House No. Name of Elector’s Father/Husband’s Name M/F Age 14 6 Miyajan Haji Rofu Sheikh M 80 15 6 Kojoli Bibi Miyajan Bibi F 65 16 6 Korim Boxha Miyajan Bibi M 44 The voter's list of 1985 is extracted herein below verbatim :- VOTERS LIST : 1985 Dist.: Goalpara, Sub-Division : Uttar Salmara, Police Station: Abhayapuri, No & Name of Polling Station - 85, Kalikura L.P. School Name of Village : 173-Kalikura Pt. – II. Sl. No. House No. Name of Elector’s Father/Husband’s Name M/F Age 250 15 Karim Sheikh Hajimiyaja M 70 252 15 Shukiton Nessa Karim Boksho Sheikh F 70 11. The aforementioned Voters’ Lists have been exhibited as Exhibit -1, Exhibit - 2 and Exhibit - 3 respectively. Several voters’ lists have been exhibited before the Tribunal, but it is not necessary to refer to the voter's list after 1989. It is apt to mention that a scrutiny of the names, age of the petitioner’s grandparents and parents will reflect the discrepancies. Several voters’ lists have been exhibited before the Tribunal, but it is not necessary to refer to the voter's list after 1989. It is apt to mention that a scrutiny of the names, age of the petitioner’s grandparents and parents will reflect the discrepancies. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party has mentioned only his grandfather's name along with his parents’ names in the written reply, but he has not given the name of his grandmother and other siblings, except one brother in his written reply. The peculiarity of the voter's list of 1989 is that the petitioner's father's name appears as Abdul Karim instead of Karim Bokhso Sheikh along with his mother's name Sukhiton Nessa as wife of Abdul Karim and not as wife of Karim Bokhso. The name of one of his brothers also appears in the voter's list of 1989 for the first time. For a better understanding of this case, the voter's list of 1989 is also extracted herein below verbatim : VOTER LIST 1989 Dist. Goalpara, Sub Division: North Salmera, Police Station: Abhayapuri No. & Name of Polling Station: 91 Kalikura L.P. School Name of Village : 166 - Kalikura Pt.-I Sl. No. House No. Name of voters Father/Husband Name Male/Female Age 225 92 Abdul Karim Haji Miyajan M 73 226 92 Sukiton Nessa Abdul Karim F 60 227 92 Fajlur Rahman Do M 32 228 92 Rahela Khatun Fajlur Rahman F 25 229 92 Abdul Jubbar A. Karim M 23 12. This voters list has been exhibited as Exhibit - 4 before the Tribunal. Here, the petitioner's father's name has changed from Karim Boxha to Abdul Karim. The petitioner has tried to justify this discrepancy in his father's name by stating that his mother's name has remained the same. It is stated that his father had a nickname and he was popularly known as Abdul Karim and this resulted in the inclusion of his father's name as Abdul Karim instead of Karim Boxha in the voters list of 1989. It is also germane to mention at this juncture that the village in the voters list of 1989 is recorded as Kalikura Pt. -I instead of Kalikura Pt.-II, contrary to the voter's list of 1985. It is also germane to mention at this juncture that the village in the voters list of 1989 is recorded as Kalikura Pt. -I instead of Kalikura Pt.-II, contrary to the voter's list of 1985. Thus, the decision of the learned Tribunal requires no interference as it has been correctly held by the Tribunal that the voter's lists of 1966, 1970 and 1985 is not at all similar to the voter's list of 1989 considering the discrepancies in the ages reflected against the names of the petitioner's parents. The name of the village also appears to be different. The petitioner's father's name in the voters list of 1989 is not similar to the voters list of 1985. 13. It is also held that some new names have been introduced anew through the evidence- in-affidavit only to fill up the lacunae. The petitioner's brother's name appears for the first time in the voters list of 1989. The voter’s list of 1989 consists the name of only one sibling. The voter’s list of 1997 reflects the name of petitioner's father as Karim Baksa Sheikh but this voter's list is of Kalikura Pt.-II, whereas the voter's list of 2005 is of village Kalikura Pt.-I and here, the petitioner's father's name is not reflected as according to the petitioner, his father has already passed away in the year 1993. 14. Relating to translated copies of voters lists, the learned counsel for FT matters, Mr. G Sharma has relied on a decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 2460/2016, Issiran Nessa vs-Union of India and others , wherein vide order dated 10.04.2018, it has been held that :- “On a careful and conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Evidence Act together with the definition of certified copy, we are of the unhesitant view that a translated copy, such as, Exts-A and D cannot be construed as certified copies and, therefore, cannot be treated as secondary evidence. This position is further strengthened if we look at Exts.A and D because there is no certification by the competent authority certifying that the extracts are true copies from the original. We may also observe that though certified copies are admissible as secondary evidence, it would be so only if those are issued by the competent authority. This position is further strengthened if we look at Exts.A and D because there is no certification by the competent authority certifying that the extracts are true copies from the original. We may also observe that though certified copies are admissible as secondary evidence, it would be so only if those are issued by the competent authority. Admission of photo-stat copies, even if attested by Notary Public, is improper and inadmissible in evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. That apart, certified copies of documents (not to speak of photo-stat copies) not coming within the ambit of Clauses (a) or (e) of Section 65 would not be admissible in evidence. That apart, as a general principle, secondary evidence is not admissible until non-production of primary evidence is satisfactorily accounted for. In addition, we may also refer to Section 66 of the Evidence Act, as per which, secondary evidence of the contents of documents shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence had previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law. In other words, a party desirous of adducing secondary evidence must not only satisfactorily explain non-production of primary evidence but also must give previous notice to the party who is in possession of the primary evidence and if despite such notice, the primary evidence is not produced before the Tribunal by the custodian of the primary evidence, in such a situation, Tribunal may invoke its power under Order 4 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to issue summons to the custodian of the primary evidence and not as a matter of course.” 15. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the Exhibits – 4, 5, 6 and 7 are translated copies and not certified copies of the voters’ lists with discrepancies galore. Thus, it would be perilous to accept the translated copies of the voters lists with discrepancies in the age, village and names of the petitioner's projected parents as well as the petitioner's village. 16. Thus, it would be perilous to accept the translated copies of the voters lists with discrepancies in the age, village and names of the petitioner's projected parents as well as the petitioner's village. 16. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the translated copies of the voters’ lists are also certified copies cannot be accepted, as the folios which have been reflected to denote that certified copies have been applied for, does not contain date of application as well as date of making over of copy to the applicant. Except exhibits-1 and 2, which are noted down as certified copies of voters’ lists, the other Exhibits - 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, clearly reflects that the voters’ lists are translated copies and not certified copies. 17. It would also be apt to reiterate that the written statement is indeed vague. The date of birth of the petitioner has not been mentioned, nor did he mention his place of birth. The date of his father's death has also not been mentioned in his written statement. It is true that after initiation of proceedings, the death certificate and the next of kin certificate, were obtained. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Orissa in Kirtan Sahu After Him Uma Sahuani Vs- Thakur Sahu reported in 1972 0 AIR (Ori) 158, wherein it has been held that : “(7) The electoral roll being a public document is admissible in evidence and it is not necessary to prove the source of information on the basis whereof the facts stated in the roll were recorded, nor is it necessary that the person who prepared the electoral roll has to be examined in court to prove the roll. As a public document it is admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act. As a public document it is admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act. As was indicated by the Judicial Committee in (1879) 7 Ind App 63 (PC) (Rani Lekraj Kuar v. Babu Mahpal Singh).” "The entry having stated that relevant fact, the entry itself becomes by force of the section a relevant fact; that is to say, it may be given in evidence as a relevant fact, because, being made by a public officer, it contains an entry of a fact which is relevant." “We would accordingly answer the question referred to us thus: The electoral roll prepared under the Representation of the Peoples Act is admissible in evidence without the author thereof and the person supplying the information being examined in the case." It would, therefore, follow that the view expressed by the Division Bench in (1970) 36 Cut LT 1211 and the three other cases already referred to by a single Judge in this Court with reference to the admissibility of the electoral roll was not correct.” 19. The ratio of the decision in Kirtan Sahu’s case (supra), however is not applicable to this case. In Kirtan Sahu’s case (supra), the electoral roll was taken into consideration, whereas in this case, the argument is relating to the translated copies of documents and therefore, in the light of the decision of this Court in Issiran Nessa (supra), it is held that the Exhibit- 3 to 7, voters’ lists cannot be accepted as evidence to prove the linkage of the petitioner with his parents as well as his grandparents. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress in her argument that the petitioner is a villager and when necessity arose, he applied for copies and has an indefeasible right to get copies or attested copies, of the documentary evidence exhibited before the Tribunal. The respondents have raised no objection and now at this appellate stage, they cannot raise objection against the validity of the documents. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2013) 10 SCC 758 , wherein it has been held that :- “13. The respondents have raised no objection and now at this appellate stage, they cannot raise objection against the validity of the documents. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2013) 10 SCC 758 , wherein it has been held that :- “13. Section 65(c) of the Act 1872 provides that secondary evidence can be adduced relating to a document when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason, not arising from his own default, or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. The court is obliged to examine the probative value of documents produced in court or their contents and decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence. (Vide: H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam, AIR 2011 SC 1492 ; and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. M.S.S. Food Products, (2012) 2 SCC 196 ). However, the secondary evidence of an ordinary document is admissible only and only when the party desirous of admitting it has proved before the court that it was not in his possession or control of it and further, that he has done what could be done to procure the production of it. Thus, the party has to account for the non-production in one of the ways indicated in the section. The party further has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. When the party gives in evidence a certified copy/secondary evidence without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, the opposite party must raise an objection at the time of admission. In case, an objection is not raised at that point of time, it is precluded from being raised at a belated stage. Further, mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Nor, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. 21. Further, mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Nor, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. 21. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaliya (supra), it is also held that mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. Thus, the documents marked as Exhibits-3 to 8 does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. Thereby, it is held that the documents marked as Exhibits- 3 to 8 cannot be held to be proof of the citizenship of the petitioner. Although no objection was raised at the stage of evidence, yet the documents which are merely translated copies cannot be accepted as valid evidence. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also laid stress in her argument that in this case, apart from the voters’ lists, the petitioner has submitted land documents, next of kin certificate, PAN card and other documents to prove his citizenship and thus, the petitioner has a strong case to prove his citizenship, however, further submitting the Tribunal has erred by rejecting the documents submitted by the petitioner, which clearly establishes the petitioner's link with his grandparents. 23. The petitioner’s documents to link him to his parents and grandparents, would be any document immediately after 1970. The voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970, reflecting the names of the petitioner’s father and grandfather is linked with the voter’s list of 1985, the land document of Kalikura Pt. –II and the Sale Deed dated 11.08.1983. The petitioner has also exhibited his birth certificate as Exhibit-9 and he has laid stress in his argument that he is an Indian citizen by birth. 24. It has already been held in the foregoing discussions that the voter’s list of 1985 cannot be stretched back to link the petitioner with his father and grandparents, whose names appear in the voter’s list of 1970. Although Kajoli Bibi’s name figures in the voter’s lists of 1966 and 1970 of village Kalikura Pt. 24. It has already been held in the foregoing discussions that the voter’s list of 1985 cannot be stretched back to link the petitioner with his father and grandparents, whose names appear in the voter’s list of 1970. Although Kajoli Bibi’s name figures in the voter’s lists of 1966 and 1970 of village Kalikura Pt. II, the petitioner was silent about the relationship of Kajoli Bibi with Miyajan, reflected in the voter’s list of 1966 and Miyaja Bibi reflected in the voter’s list of 1970. 25. Let us assume Kajoli Bibi was the petitioner’s grandmother but why was the petitioner silent in his written statement about the relationship of Kajoli Bibi with his grandfather or his father. Now, the voter’s list of 1985 is also under-cloud as the voter’s lists of 1985 is a translated copy reflecting the name of Shukiton Nessa, petitioner’s mother for the first time at the age of 70, whereas her name was not reflected in the voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970. 26. In 1985, the petitioner’s grandfather’s name is shown as Hajimiyaja and not Miyajan Haji or Miyaja Bibi, as reflected in the voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970. As the petitioner could not establish his link with his father through the voter’s list of 1985, the birth certificate of the petitioner is of no value. 27. Surprisingly in the voter’s list of 1989, the petitioner’s father’s name is not Karim Boksho Sheikh or Korim Boxha, but here, in the voters list of 1989 where the petitioner’s name figures for the first time, his father’s name is shown as A. Karim and not Karim Bokhso Sheikh or Korim Boxha. The explanation given by the petitioner is very absurd as it has been stated by the petitioner that his father has a popular nickname as Abdul Karim and so, instead of Karim Boksho Sheikh or Korim Boxha, his father name appears as Abdul Karim in the voter’s list of 1989. However, surprisingly, the village now appears to be Kalikura Pt. II in the voter’s list of 1985 contrary to the voter’s list of 1989. 28. The order in the land documents was passed on 11.10.2017 relating to village Kalikura Pt. II and the petitioner’s mother’s name appears at Sl. No. 2 as wife of Abdul Karim and not Karim Boksho whereas at Sl. II in the voter’s list of 1985 contrary to the voter’s list of 1989. 28. The order in the land documents was passed on 11.10.2017 relating to village Kalikura Pt. II and the petitioner’s mother’s name appears at Sl. No. 2 as wife of Abdul Karim and not Karim Boksho whereas at Sl. No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the name of Karim Boksho Sheikh is shown along with the names of recorded pattadars 3. Jobahur Begum, 4. Fajlur Rahman, 5. Sahera Khatun, 6. Nurjahan Nessa and 7. Abdul Jubbar; but surprisingly, Musstt. Sukhiton Nessa is shown as wife of Abdul Korim and not wife of Karim Boksho Sheikh. The note on the remark column clearly reveals that the recorded pattadars are the children of Karim Boksho Sheikh whereas the name of Musstt. Sukhiton Nessa was not mutated as wife of Karim Boksho Sheikh or Abdul Karim. This copy of jamabandi is marked as Exhibit-10 of the petition. 29. In view of the discrepancies reflected in the foregoing discussions, it is held that the petitioner has miserably failed to justify the discrepancies in the names reflected in the voters’ lists as well as in the land documents. Even the Gift Deed marked as Exhibit-11 was registered in the year 1983. The donees were the petitioner and his sisters but the petitioner did not mention any of his sisters names in his written statement. 30. Thereby, it is held that the petitioner could not establish his lineage with his father and grandmother whose names appear in the voter’s lists of 1966 and 1970 with the help of the land documents or the voter’s list or even the voter’s lists of 1985. 31. Appeal is hereby dismissed as appeal is bereft of merits. ORDER 32. The challenge to the impugned opinion fails and resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the consequences of the impugned opinion dated 06-12-2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon no. 2, Abhayapuri in connection with BNGN/FT-2/APR/124/2016 thereby holding the petitioner abovenamed as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, shall follow. 33. There shall be no order as to cost. 34. The Registry shall send back the Tribunal’s record along with a copy of this judgment and order, to be made a part of the record by the learned Tribunal for future reference.