and by taking that statement into evidence. His Majesty’s Government that has the power to take action and make decision has not even got me to make statement for the sake of an opportunity of hearing. The District Administration Office does not have the power to take action of annulling of the citizenship, which was taken up by Narayani Zonal Commissioner’s Office. If had, the action of annulling of the citizenship taken up from Birgunj, Parsa is not supposed to be carried on by Makwanpur District Administration. I am a Nepalese citizen. Although His majesty’s Government is supposed to annul the citizenship of false description, it is not congruent that only the Home Minister has done it alone. His Majesty’s Government means the Council of Ministers. In Clause 4 (A) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2009, there is legal provision that the children who were born in Nepal can obtain the citizenship. The District Administration, Makwanpur has not been able to say by birth otherwise while sending upon scrutiny on date 2045/12/20 (April 2, 1989 A.D.). The men of spot investigation have justified that I was born in Nepal; though from the deeds including the cases of partition passed by mother Tara Devi, executed in Makwanpur District Court, and from my educational certificates also that I am being seen to be a Nepalese citizen, the decision made by Home Minister to cancel to make my citizenship void and the decision of the Appellate Court, Patan is revocable; hence, the case should be repeated. Application furnished in this Court by the defendant, Ashok Kumar Shah, reads as above. In the present case that has been submitted by being inducted in the daily cause lists as per Rule, by studying the document file along with the appeal, the pleadings made by learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Mahadev Prasad Yadav and Advocate, Ram Bandhu Sharma, present on behalf of the appealer, Ashok Kumar Shah, have been heard including that Ashok Kumar has obtained citizenship as per the legal provision of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2009 on the basis of birth in Nepal. There is no situation of being able to say that he was not born in Nepal. There is no situation to say a person settled down in Nepal a foreigner simply because of not obtaining citizenship. There is no situation that it cannot be disclosed with the investigation that if he is not the citizen of Nepal, he is a citizen of which country; hence, the decision to deprive of the citizenship is erroneous. The right up to omitting from the citizenship by cancelling the citizenship is vested in the Government; the action of including confiscating the properties and taking court actions have happened; and should be revoked. Likewise, the learned Joint- Attorney, Mahesh Thapa, on behalf of the opponent, the Government of Nepal, presented the pleading that as the defendant has made the statement including that the house lies in Indian State. The father had stayed in Hetauda since about 2005, hence, it is justified that they are not Nepalese and obtaining citizenship by two years old Ashok Kumar is not suitable to the law either; hence, the decision should be made valid. Upon hearing the pleadings of the learned legal professionals and looking into the documents evidence attached with the document file, decision is supposed to be made on whether the decision made by the Appellate Court is congruent or not? And, whether the appeal pleadings of the appealer can be sufficient or not? In this, the matter that right of immovable property has been handed over after the parents of the defendant settled down in Nepal have been seen from the deeds of the dates of 2013/9/17 (December 31, 1956 A.D.) and 2022/12/21 (April 3, 1966 A.D.) and Ashok Kumar Shah Kalawar of the defendants is seen to have obtained the Nepalese citizenship certificate on 2024/8/8 (November 24, 1967 A.D.) by mentioning the descriptions of being a citizen by birth as per the provision of the then Clause 4 (A) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2009. In the situation that this same defendant, Ashok Kumar Shah, is being seen to have possessed the house and settlement in Nepal by purchasing immovable properties on various dates after obtaining the Nepalese citizenship certificate, the interpretive errors of Clause 4 (A) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2009, 184 (A) of Court Procedure and Clauses 3, 54 (A) of Evidence Act, 2034 are seen in the decision of Appellate Court, Patan that has validated the decision of Home Ministry made to cancel the Nepalese citizenship of the defendant, without making evaluation and analysis of it; hence, the proof of seeing the present case special leave of appeal has been granted. The order of the date of 2064/11/17 (February 29, 2008 A.D.) of Division Bench of this Court reads as above. 2. While considering towards the decision, from the letter of District Administration Office, Makwanpur, in the action surfaced upon the charge of the citizenship obtained by a non-Nepalese citizen including on the basis that citizenship was obtained by submitting the false descriptions with relation of birth, the decision has been made by His Majesty’s Government, Home Minister to omit him from the Nepalese citizenship by cancelling the citizenship certificate of the appealer defendant, Ashok Kuamr Shah, and the aforementioned decision is seen to have been made valid by the Appellate Court, Patan. While making the statement at District Administration Office, Makwanpur, this appealer defendant, Ashok Kumar is seen to have mentioned that his father had settled down at Chisapani of Hetauda situated in Makwanpur District since around 2005 B.S. (1948/49 A.D.) and that he was also 25 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION