born at the same place. The fact that his father, Jay Narayan, had settled in Nepal by building a house in Hetauda, and that this Jay Narayan was running a business by opening up a liquor shop is seen from deeds earlier than 2019 B.S. (1962/63 A.D.) and various receipts of the taxes paid since 2028 B.S. (1971/72 A.D.), attached with the document file. Although the parents of this appealer, Ashok Kumar Shah, are not seen to have obtained citizenship certificates, they are seen to have purchased land in their names and settled down by building the house. The father of this appealer, Jay Narayan, a person with a permanent residency in Nepal, is logically considered as a citizen of Nepal until and unless he is justified otherwise, and the plaintiff is not seen to be able to establish factually and definitely, stating that he was a resident of this place of a foreign country or to prove otherwise by submitting any substantial evidence related with this matter. There is no situation to assume that a person is a foreign citizen simply because he/she has not obtained the Nepalese citizenship in any time period despite permanently residing in Nepal, and it has no legal base. Nepalese citizenship is required only to acquire land, to achieve higher education, to register in the Government of Nepal while running any business and occupation, to get appointed to any government posts or if this certificate is supposed to be submitted as per similar other laws. Compulsory legal provision is not found to have existed before 2020 B.S. (1963/64 A.D.) to submit the citizenship certificate for including acquiring land, or running a business or transaction or for any other purpose. Moreover, no legal provision is found to have existed that each person having permanent residency in Nepal must obtain citizenship certificate; hence, it is not right to assume that the father of the appealer, Jay Narayan, automatically remained as a non-Nepalese citizen or a foreign citizen simply because the citizenship certificate was not obtained in the then situation. not born in Hetauda of Nepal or that he is a permanent resident of a certain place in foreign country. The party holding the pleading that one is not a permanent resident of Nepal or is a foreign citizen has to establish factually that he is a citizen of which foreign country. In his/ her complaint, the person who filed complaint anonymously or the officer who conducted investigation on the basis of that complaint or the decision maker is not found to have been able to definitely say that thing in his/her decision either. 4. Man of spot investigation of the date of 2057/6/2 (September 18, 2000 A.D.), attached with document file, is found to have got it written stating that Ashok Kumar Shah was born in Chisapani of Hetauda on 15/10/1966 A.D. and that it is right that the citizenship certificate was obtained from Narayani Zonal Commissioner’s Office. This appealer defendant is seen to have obtained the citizenship by birth on the basis of Clause 4 (A) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2009. As the legal provision of the aforementioned Clause 4 (A), there is clear provision that the children born in Nepal are allowed to obtain citizenships. Though his statement has been that this Ashok Kumar was born in a place called Chisapani of Hetauda, the matter that this was not so is not seen to have been ruled out by the document file with any substantial and factual evidence. The Home Ministry is seen to have cancelled the citizenship obtained by this Ashok Kumar, on the basis of Clause 10 (3 A) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2020, stating that it was obtained by submitting false descriptions. But, from the evidence attached with the document file, the situation is being appeared that it has been justified that this Ashok Kumar was born in Nepal and has obtained citizenship as per the then prevailing legal provision of Clause 4 (A) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2009. In such situation, substantial and definite evidence to be able to justify otherwise is not seen to have been mentioned in the decision of Home Minister of the date of 2058/11/21 (March 5, 2002 A.D.), stating that the defendant lied which description and he is a resident of which country, which village or town. In such situation, the decision made on the basis of baseless and fact-less complaint to omit him from the Nepalese citizenship is seen to have been erroneous. Opposite to this, situation is seen from the documents attached with the document file including that this Ashok Kumar was born in Chisapani, Hetauda of Nepal and he has been permanently residing in Hetauda; upon purchasing on different dates, his parents owned, used, sold and had various 3. The appealer, Ashok Kumar, is seen to have obtained Nepalese citizenship by birth from Narayani Zonal Commissioner’s Office in 2024 B.S. (1967/68 A.D.) as per the legal provision of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2009, then prevailing, and there was provision that the person born in Nepal shall be the citizen of Nepal as per the aforementioned Act, then prevailing; hence, upon the citizenship obtained as per the then prevailing legal provision, the investigation officer or decision maker also are not found to have been able to mention that matter substantially and definitely, stating that he was 26 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION