JUDGMENT : Susmita Phukan Khaund, J. Jamina Begum is the petitioner who has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order/opinion dated 10.08.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abhayapuri in connection with BNGN/FT/Case No. 958/2009 whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who entered into India from Bangladesh illegally subsequent to 25.03.1971. 2. Petitioner has claimed that she is an Indian citizen born in the year 1987 at village – Madulijhar in the district of Barpeta, Assam. Her marriage was solemnized with Md. Nurul Hoque of Jaraguri No.2 village in the neighbouring district of Bongaigaon in the year 2007. She is the mother of two daughters, who are 8(Eight) years and 4 (Four) years old respectively. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s father’s name has been recorded in the NRC of 1951 as Tubibar Rahman, S/O - Rejan Ali, Legacy Data Code – 120-0021-7461, Under Village – Madulijhar, PS – Sorbhog, Mouza – Rupshi, House No – 252 (ka), District – Barpeta, (Annexure - III). 3. The petitioner has further submitted that her grandfather’s name has been recorded as Rejan Ali Sheikh S/O – Jahila Sheikh in the Voters List of 1966 vide Sl. No. – 618, House No. – 178, Village – Madulijhar, Subdivision – Barpeta, District – then Kamrup, PS – Sorbhog, Under then 51 No - Jania LAC (Annexure – IV). 4. The petitioner has submitted that her grandfather’s name Rejan Ali Sheikh @ Rejan Ali @ Rejamhas been recorded as Rejan Ali in the voters list of 1970 as S/O - Jahul, Sl. No.– 695. Page No.# 4/12 House No. – 178, Village – Madulijhar, Subdivision – Barpeta, Dist. – then Kamrup, PS – Sorbhog under then 51 No.Jania LAC. (Annexure – V). 5. It is further submitted by the petitioner that her father’s name Tubibar Rahman @ Tabir Ali @ Tabib Ali has been recorded as Tabir Ali in the voters list of 1993 as Tabir Ali in the voters list of 1993 as S/O – Rejam, Sl. No. – 637, House No. – 178 Village – Madulijhar, Sub-division – Barepta, Dist. – Barpeta, PS – Sorbhog. Under then 44 No.- Jania LAC and, her mother’s name has also been recorded in the same voters list at Sl. No. 638 as Monowara Begum, W/O – Tabir Ali, (Annexure – VI). 6. No. – 637, House No. – 178 Village – Madulijhar, Sub-division – Barepta, Dist. – Barpeta, PS – Sorbhog. Under then 44 No.- Jania LAC and, her mother’s name has also been recorded in the same voters list at Sl. No. 638 as Monowara Begum, W/O – Tabir Ali, (Annexure – VI). 6. The petitioner has also annexed several other voters’ lists post 1993 but to establish a link between the petitioner and her father, the voters list at Annexure – III, V and VI are sufficient. The voters list wherein the petitioner’s name has appeared for the first time as an Indian citizen eligible to vote, could establish her lineage. 7. The petitioner tried to attribute sufficient reasons relating to discrepancies in the names of the petitioner’s parents reflected in several voters’ lists. The petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Headmaster of Chakchaka Government Majalia Vidyalaya, Chakchaka Bazar, marked as Annexure – IX of the petition as well as to the certificate issued by the Secretary of Madulijhar Gaon Panchayat, marked as Annexure – X. 8. It is further submitted by the petitioner that she tried to get her name enlisted in the voters list prior to publication of the list in the year 2010 but her name was not included along with the name of her husband, but her name was included for the first time in the voters list of 2013 and thereafter, in the voters list of 2016 at her parental home at village – Madulijhar, under 44 No.Jania LAC. It is further submitted that a reference was made in connection with Musstt.Jasmina Bibi, D/O – Md. Nuruddin Seikh, W/O – Md. Nurul Hoque of Balajani Sibir (Jaraguri No.2), in the year 2004. 8.1. It is further submitted that after perusal of the reference sheet (report of the Inquiry Officer), the SI (B) submitted a report on 19.03.2004 and the Inspector of Police, Border Branch, Bongaigaon affixed his signature on the report on 13.05.2004. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Bongaigaon affixed their signatures on 17.08.2004 and the reference was forwarded to IMD(T) by the SP, Bongaigaon, Assam on 08.06.2004. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Bongaigaon affixed their signatures on 17.08.2004 and the reference was forwarded to IMD(T) by the SP, Bongaigaon, Assam on 08.06.2004. Pursuant to the reference, a notice was issued by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon (Barpara, Ward No. 5) in the name of Musstt.JarimaBibi, W/O – NurulHaque, Balajani (Jarugbari No. – 2), PS – Abhayapuri, Dist. –Bongaigaon, to appear 01.10.2012 and the notice was received by the elder brother of the petitioner’s husband on 28.09.2012. The petitioner appeared before the Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon and submitted a WS on 31.05.2013. She contested the proceeding and she submitted her evidence-in-affidavit along with 17 (Seventeen) documents in support of her case. The petitioner’s father was also examined as DW-2. It is further averred that the reference was made against Musstt.Jasmina Bibi, D/O – Nuruddin Seikh, W/O – Md. Nurul Hoque, after submitting the inquiry report of the year 2004. 8.2. However, it has surfaced from the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 that the petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with Nurul Hoque in the year 2007. Thus, it is not plausible that the Superintendent of Police (B) in connection with the nationality of the petitioner conducted the reference/inquiry. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal relied heavily on the cross-examination of DW-2 and erroneously held the petitioner to be a foreign national by ignoring the fact that DW-2 was an illiterate man who was 62 year old and it is most likely that he could possibly forget the date of birth of his daughter or the age of his daughter considering his naivette. 10. Flaying the petition, the learned Departmental Standing Counsel Mr. G. Sharma laid stress in his argument that the written statement submitted by the petitioner is vague and opaque. The petitioner has not mentioned the name of her siblings in her written statement. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases: (i) Election Commission of India & anr. -Vs- Dr. Manmohan Singh & Ors. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 591 , (ii) Md. Jainuddin @ Joinuddin Ali @ Joinuddin & Ors. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases: (i) Election Commission of India & anr. -Vs- Dr. Manmohan Singh & Ors. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 591 , (ii) Md. Jainuddin @ Joinuddin Ali @ Joinuddin & Ors. -Vs- Union of India [WP (C) No. 5474/2013), (iii) Rashminara Begum -Vs- Union of India & Ors reported in 2017 (4) GLT 346 and (iv) Md.Babul Islam -Vs- Union of India [WP (C) No. 3547/2016]. It is further submitted by the learned departmental counsel Mr. G. Sharma that continuous residing in a particular place does not entitle a person to citizenship as held in the case of Dr.Manmohan Singh (supra). It is also submitted that voter ID card submitted by the petitioner is not a valid piece of evidence. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the Bar. 12. It is true that the petitioner has contested the proceeding and has filed her written statement but at the same time, it is apparent that the petitioner has not mentioned the name of her siblings in her written statement nor has she mentioned the names of her grandmother. Although the petitioner has elaborately described her family tree through her evidence-in-chief yet, as the petitioner has failed to mention the names of her siblings and her grandmother in her written statement, the petitioner has limited herself to establish her lineage only through her written statement and documentary evidence submitted along with her written statement. According to her written statement, the petitioner has stated that Exhibit-2 is the link certificate with her father Md. Tabib Ali. Exhibit-3 is also a voter list of 1997 where the name of Tabib Ali appears as son of Rejan and the name of Manowara Begum appears as wife of Tabib as residents of Barpeta, Sarbhog, Rupsi-mouza and Village- Madulijhar. Much reliance was placed by the petitioner to establish her linkage on Exhibits - 2 & 3 and Exhibit-4 (a school transfer certificate). 13. The petitioner tried to establish her linkage of her father Tabib Ali with her grandfather Rejan Ali through the voters list of 1993 marked as exhibit-iv but the petitioner has failed to establish any linkage as voter list of 1993 reveals the name of Tabir Ali as son of Rejan and not Rejan Ali. Tabib Ali’s name is shown as Tabir. Tabib Ali’s name is shown as Tabir. The Ext-3 voters list is the same voters list marked as Exhibit-ii in the evidence in chief. It is the voters list of 1966. This voters list cannot be stretched so far to tally with the voters list of 1993 to establish the petitioner’s lineage. 14. Due to the discrepancies galore, the petitioner, despite introducing the Voters Lists of 1966 through her evidence failed to establish her linkage with her father and her grandfather. Through the Voters Lists of 1966, the petitioner has tried to project her grandfather's name as Rejan Ali Sheikh, whereas, the Voters Lists of 1993 reflects the petitioner's grandfather's name as Rejan. Although the Voters List is relating to the same LAC, the petitioner has failed to assign cogent reasons for the discrepancies in the names appearing in the Voters Lists of 1966 and the Voters Lists of 1993 introduced by the petitioner in the same household and same house number. It has to be borne in mind that Exhibit-iv, was introduced at the stage of evidence and is beyond pleadings. The other document introduced by the petitioner as DW-1, at the stage of evidence as Exhibit-v, which reflects the name of Tabib Ali as son of Rejan but now the House number is different and is shown as House No. 209, but the LAC of the Voters Lists of 1993 and the Voters Lists of 1997 (Exhibit-v), is the same LAC i.e. Jania, but there are discrepancies in the age of Tabib Ali who is shown as Tabir Ali in the Voters Lists of 1993, Exhibit-iv, and the Voters List of 1997, Exhibit-v. In the Voters Lists of 1993, Tabib Ali, son of Rejan is 38 years old, whereas after four years, Tabib Ali @ Tabir Ali, son of Rejan Ali is shown to be 32 years old. Even, if this case is remanded back to allow the petitioner/procedee to submit documents introduced at the stage of evidence, it is apparent that the petitioner will not be able to prove her lineage. 15. The petitioner tried to explain through her evidence that Tabir Ali and Md. Tabib Ali is the same person and so is Md. Rejan Ali Sheikh, Rejan Ali and Rejam. 15. The petitioner tried to explain through her evidence that Tabir Ali and Md. Tabib Ali is the same person and so is Md. Rejan Ali Sheikh, Rejan Ali and Rejam. However, the petitioner has failed to prove that Tabir Ali and Tabib Ali is the same person and so is Rejan Ali Sheikh, Rejan Ali @ Rejam. As the petitioner has failed to mention in her written statement that Tabir Ali is Tabir Ali and Rejan Ali is Rejam, her evidence in affidavit without substantiating evidence does not prove that Rejam Ali @ Rejan Ali and Rejam is the same person and so is Tabib Ali and Tabir Ali. The petitioner then tried to establish her linkage by stretching the evidence. 16. It has been held by this court in Muhammad Babul Islam's case, (Supra), that ? “petitioner tried to explain the discrepancies in the name of father and grandfather by swearing an affidavit on 30-01-2015, which was marked as Exhibit 11. Such a self-serving suo moto affidavit is neither proof nor evidence having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 1 & 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and Order 19, Rule 1 of the CPC.” At the stage of evidence, the petitioner has introduced Exhibit-xii which is an affidavit stating that Tabib Ali @ Tabir Ali and Tabibur Rahman is the same person and Rezan Ali Sheikh @Rejan Ali and Rejan is the same person. The Exhibit-xii does not come to the aid of the petitioner. 17. There are too many discrepancies in the evidence rendering the petitioner’s case unreliable. Exhibit-vi introduced at the stage of evidence, is the voters list of 2010 of the same Village-Madulijhar wherein the name of Tabib Ali appears now as son of Rejan Ali. His age is given as 55 years. This is not plausible as 13 years ago in the year 1997 Tabib Ali was 32 years old, and thus in the year 2010 his age ought to have been 47 years and not 55 years. It is also apt to mention that at this juncture there is not a single whisper in the written statement / written reply that discrepancies appear in the names of the petitioner’s grandfather and her father. It is also apt to mention that at this juncture there is not a single whisper in the written statement / written reply that discrepancies appear in the names of the petitioner’s grandfather and her father. She has also not mentioned in her written statement that her father’s name has been wrongly mentioned as Tabir Ali in certain voters list and Tabib Ali in other voters lists. The evidence adduced by the petitioner is way beyond her pleadings, casting a shadow of doubt about her veracity of evidence. The petitioner’s projected father has also stated in his evidence-in-chief as DW-2 that he is a citizen of India and his name has been mentioned as Tubibar Rahman @ Tabir Ali. He has also proved the NRC as Exhibit (i). At this juncture, it is apt to mention that the learned tribunal has correctly held that ‘NRC extracts produced to prove domicile in India is not admissible in evidence for any purpose’. 18. It has been held by this Court in Rashaminara Begum (supra) that written statement is the basic statement of defence of a proceedee before the Foreigners Tribunal. Keeping in mind the mandate of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, it is incumbent upon the proceedee to disclose at the first instance itself i.e., in his written statement all relevant facts specially within his knowledge having a material bearing on his claim to citizenship of India. Material facts pleaded in the written statement are thereafter required to be proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It is also trite that a party cannot traverse beyond the pleadings made in the written statement. 19. Reverting back to this instant case, it is held that as the petitioner has not mentioned about the discrepancies of her father as well as her grandfather’s name in her written statement, evidence of DWs - 1 and 2 regarding various names of Tubibar Rahman and Rejan Ali Sheikh cannot be accepted at this stage. 20. The learned Tribunal has correctly held that if the petitioner's father was one year old in the year 1951, then his name ought to have appeared in the Voters List of the year 1970 along with his grandfather, but the Voters List of 1970 marked as Exhibit-iii, does not reflect the petitioner's father's name. 20. The learned Tribunal has correctly held that if the petitioner's father was one year old in the year 1951, then his name ought to have appeared in the Voters List of the year 1970 along with his grandfather, but the Voters List of 1970 marked as Exhibit-iii, does not reflect the petitioner's father's name. It has also been submitted that this Voters list was not submitted along with the documents while the evidence in chief along with the written statement was submitted. The certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat marked as Exhibit- viii, has not been proved by the petitioner. The Secretary of Madulijhar Gaon Panchayat was not produced as a witness. Moreover, this certificate is issued by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to affirm that the petitioner is the wife of Nurul Haque and according to the Voters Lists of 2013, she is a resident of House No. 209 under the Jania constituency, who is the daughter of Tabib Ali. It is needless to say that this certificate does not establish her linkage with her father, more so owing to the emblem embossed on the Certificate it also cannot be accepted in evidence. 21. The decision of this court in the case of Md. Jainuddin Ali (Supra) can be gainfully referred to wherein, it was observed that – “9. Keeping in mind the above principles, it is to be seen as to whether the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record can be said to be perverse or devoid of appreciation of evidence on record or there is any error of law which is apparent on the face of the record. It is a well established principle that a finding of fact cannot be challenged under Article 226 on the ground that the evidence before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the findings, as a Writ Court is not a Court of appeal. So also errors in appreciation of documents or affidavits or errors in drawing inferences, or omission to draw inferences; in other words, errors of a Court of appeal only can examine and correct, are not amenable to correction in a Certiorari proceeding. So also errors in appreciation of documents or affidavits or errors in drawing inferences, or omission to draw inferences; in other words, errors of a Court of appeal only can examine and correct, are not amenable to correction in a Certiorari proceeding. But, if it is shown that in recording the said findings the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidences, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which had influenced the impugned findings, the same can be assailed in a writ petition.” 22. It has been held in the foregoing discussions that the petitioner has failed to establish her linkage with her father Tabib Ali, and Exhibit-xi which was issued on 01.10.2013 shows that she is the daughter of Tabib Ali and her address is shown as 44, Jania Constituency covering Madulijhar Village, P.S.-Sorbhog, District-Barpeta. The other Voter List and Exhibits are not noteworthy as the petitioner has failed to establish her lineage and the documents are recently issued documents. The Exhibits-xvi and xvii are the certificates issued by the President of Madulijhar Gaon Panchayat and the Gaonburah of Madulijhar certifying that Tabib Ali, son of Rejan Ali was a resident of Madulijhar Village. The petitioner has not proved these certificates by examining the Secretary of Madulijhar Gaon Panchayat and the Gaonburah of Madulijhar Village. 23. In the instant case, findings of the Tribunal cannot be held to be perverse or erroneous. The petitioner failed to substantiate her pleadings with proper reliable documents. She has also failed to prove her lineage and discharge her onus mandated under Section 9 of the Act of 1946, even after introducing evidence anew, at the stage of adducing her evidence. 24. It has already been held in the foregoing discussions that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish lineage with her projected father and grandfather. Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove that she is a citizen of India. The learned Tribunal has spelt out sound reasoning’s while deciding the petitioner's case. 25. In the wake of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the impugned order/opinion dated 10.08.2018 passed by learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abhayapuri in BNGN/FT/Case No. 958/2009 (arising out of Reference No. BNGN IMDT Case No. 104/2004) does not call for any interference. Thereby, as this petition lacks merits, it is dismissed. 26. 25. In the wake of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the impugned order/opinion dated 10.08.2018 passed by learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abhayapuri in BNGN/FT/Case No. 958/2009 (arising out of Reference No. BNGN IMDT Case No. 104/2004) does not call for any interference. Thereby, as this petition lacks merits, it is dismissed. 26. Interim order and protection granted to the petitioner earlier on 16.11.2018 in this proceeding stands vacated. 27. Return the records of BNGN/FT/Case No. 958/2009 to the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2, Abhayapuri along with a copy of this judgment and order. 28. Copies of this order be also furnished to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Bongaigaon, Standing Counsel, Home and Political Department as well as Standing Counsel, State Coordinator, NRC, Assam and the Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India.