Atifa Begum Barbhuiya @ Atipa Begum vs Union Of India And 6 Ors

AM Bujor Barua, J

Heard Mr. FU Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Baruah, learned counsel for the Election Commission of

India and Mr. J Payeng, learned counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border Areas, Ms. A Verma, learned

standing counsel for the authorities under the NRC as well as Ms. G Hazarika, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India.

By the judgment and order dated 31.01.2019 in WP(C)No.7292/2018, the writ petition under certiorari jurisdiction preferred by the petitioner against

the judgment and order dated 02.08.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.4th, Cachar at Silchar in Case No.F.T 4 th/D/325/2015 was given its

consideration. In the writ petition, the contention raised was that the petitioner is the daughter of Toyakul Ali (who is also referred in some of the

documents on record as Tuakul Ali), son of Late Mofur Ali, whose name appeared in the voters list of 1965 of village Bhairabpur Part II, EP No.75,

Circle No.5, House No.15, Sl.No.74 and further that the name of her mother was Moirun Nessa, whose name also appeared immediately after

Toyakul Ali in the voters list of 1965.

The petitioner also relied upon the voters list of 1985 of village Bhairabpur Part II, EP No.60, House No.52, Sl.No.175, where the name of the

petitioner appeared along with Wakul Ali, son of Late Mofur Ali, which also contained the name of Koirun Bibi, wife of Wakul Ali aged 40 years at

Sl. No.174.

In the judgment and order dated 31.01.2019, a satisfaction was arrived that the voters list of 1985 relied upon and exhibited by the petitioner

although in respect of Bhairabpur Part II, but it pertained to Electoral Part No.60.

In this review petition, a contention has also been raised that the said satisfaction was incorrect and infact the voters list of 1965 relied upon by the

petitioner pertains to Electoral Part No.75 and not 60. Although the said incorrect recording of the fact is accepted but we take note of that it was not

the reason for which the claim of the petitioner was rejected in the judgment and order dated 31.01.2019.

In paragraph 6 of the judgment, a conclusion was arrived at which is as follows:

“6. In order to establish her linkage with Toyakul Ali of the 1965 voters list, the petitioner is required to establish that Wakul Ali son of Mofur Ali of

the 1985 voters list and Toyakul Ali of 1965 voters list are one and the same person.

The reason as to why the claim of the petitioner stood rejected was that in order to establish a linkage with Toyakul Ali (Tuakul Ali) with the 1965

voters list, the petitioner was required to establish that Wakul Ali of 1985 voters list and Toyakul Ali (Tuakul Ali) of 1965 voters list are one and the

same person.

Mr. FU Barbhuiya, learned counsel relies upon the deposition of the petitioner Atifa Begum before the Tribunal wherein in cross examination, she

stated that the name of her father is Tuakul Ali and he is also known as Wakul Ali. Even if we accept the said deposition of the petitioner in cross

before the Tribunal, what we would arrive at is that Tuakul Ali was also known as Wakul Ali. But when we look into our conclusion in the judgment

and order dated 31.01.2019, we take note of that we had not rejected the claim of the petitioner because Wakul Ali was also not known as Tuakul Ali,

but because the petitioner failed to prove that Tuakul Ali of 1965 voters list and Wakul Ali of 1985 voters list are one and the same person.

By the requirement of proving that two persons are one and the same person, what is meant is that the claimant must not only prove that the two

persons are known by the same name but they are also required to prove through other collateral and further evidence that in fact the two persons

named and called by the same name are one and the same person. Such evidence may be in any form which would show that not only the names are

same but the actual person concerned is also one and the same person. We do not find any material being produced by the petitioner from which we

may arrive at a conclusion that Tuakul Ali of 1965 voters list and Wakul Ali of the 1985 voters list are one and the same person.

In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity being brought to the notice of the Court which would require a review of the judgment and order

dated 31.01.2019.

The review petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.