Central Information Commission
K Rajendiran vs Ut Of Puducherry on 28 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2023/125278
K Rajendiran .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Director of Survey and Land
Records, Settlement
Tahsildar, Puducherry - 605013 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.08.2024
Date of Decision : 23.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 01.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.06.2023
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"As per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, I want to view the survey subdivision file, through RTI Act 2005.
Q.no.1 In the year 2022, You have given for the survey no. 223/3, sub divided to 223/3A2, extent.00.3.87 s.m patta no.1486. Patta issued in the name of Anitha W/o Govindram. So, I want to get your permission to view the survey subdivision record and to take Xerox copy of viewing file for the subdivision R.S. No.223/3A2 patta order file through R.T I. Act. So, I required your permission. I want to view the file of Survey subdivision record for given the patta no.1486 for the R.S. no.223/3A2. Extent.00.3.87.s.m."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.03.2023 stating as under:
"It is informed that an objection to disclose the information sought for was received from Smt. Anitha W/o Govindaram vide Tapal No. 1539 dt. 07.03.2023 and a copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your ready reference. Hence, the information sought by you could not be provided by this office as per the request of the objector."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 03.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Vibesh PIO-cum-Tahsildar and Shri B. Santosh Kumar, APIO, appeared through video conference.Page 2 of 4
The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not allowed inspection of file of Survey subdivision record for given the patta no.1486 for the R.S. no. 223/3A2. Extent.00.3.87.s.m. He stated that he has not sought any personal information of any third party. The appellant pleaded that his land is adjoining to the land having patta no.1486 and as per his knowledge patta was wrongly issued in the name of Smt. Anitha. Therefore, he sought aforesaid information.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant was not connected with the aforesaid survey number. They stated that procedure given under section 11 of the RTI Act was followed and third party to whom the said survey belongs has refused to share her property information with the appellant. Accordingly, they had denied the information on the ground of third party.
The respondent further submitted that if the appellant was having apprehension that aforesaid patta was wrongly transferred, he can appeal before the Director of Service as per the procedure.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant wanted to inspect the file of Survey subdivision record for given the patta no.1486 for the R.S. no.223/3A2. Extent.00.3.87.s.m. The respondent denied the information on the ground of third-party information after following the procedure laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act.
The appellant during the hearing pleaded that patta was wrongly issued in the name of Smt. Anitha. He stated that his own patta number match with the patta number of Smt. Anitha. Therefore, he wanted to inspect the records of the aforesaid patta number which was denied by the respondent.
The respondent informed that if the appellant has any grievance with regard to patta number issued to him, he can file an appeal before the Director of Service under the Revenue law. The Commission finds that due reply has been given by the respondent. It is also noted that the appellant has alternative efficacious remedy available under the appropriate revenue law with UT which Page 3 of 4 has not been availed by him. In view of the above, the Commission finds no reason to intervene in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Director of Survey & Land Records, Revenue Complex, Saram, Puducherry - 605013 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)