Central Information Commission
Nagaraj M vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 12 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No:
CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/125590
CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/121720
Nagaraj M ....अपीलकता/Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Defence Estate Office,
Madras Circle, 306, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600018
Hearing no. HEARING DATE DATE OF DECISION
First interim 04.02.2026 09.02.2026
decision
Final Decision 06.05.2026 12.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are clubbed together as the Appellant
and Complainant is common and arising out of the same RTI application and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Relevant Facts emerging from the instant matters:
Case No Date of RTI CPIO Reply First Appeal FAA Order Second Appeal/
Dated Complaint Dated
125590 22.05.2024 19.02.2026 26.06.2024 N.A 18.08.2024
and
06.03.2026
121720 22.05.2024 19.02.2026 26.06.2024 N.A 10.07.2024
and
06.03.2026
Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2024 seeking the following information:
"(1) Provide copy of village map for field numbers 1 to 301 of MILITARY SURVEY Nos. 1 to 301 of Morai Village, Chengalpattu District, Saidapet Taluk.
(2) For Village Morai, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, provide the details of year, month, date of creation of MILITARY SURVEY NUMBERS and copies of relevant decrees as attested copies. (3) Provide photocopies of Field Nos. 1 to 301 as attested true copies of MILITARY Survey Nos.
(4) Provide copies of NAME OF THE AWARDEE DETAILS for Field Nos. 1 to 301 of MILITARY SURVEY Nos. as attested true copies. (5) Provide copies of details of receiving NAME OF THE AWARDEES COMPENSATION for field numbers 1 to 301 of MILITARY SURVEY Nos. (6) Provide certified true copies of Paimash Correlation records for field numbers 1 to 301 of MILITARY Survey Nos.
(7) Provide copies of Paimash numbers for field numbers 1 to 301 in MILITARY survey numbers as certified true copies. (8) Provide new field numbers SETTLEMENT copies of 1370 pasali for these field numbers.
(9) REQUISITION ORDER MADE UNDER THE DEFENSE OF INDIA RULES 1939 UNDER HIS ORDER RC 12079/43 DT 18/11/1943 Provide certified true copies of the order.
(10) DE - REQUISITION ORDER MADE UNDER THE DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES Provide certified copies of the order."
2. The CPIO, Defence Estate Office, transferred the RTI application to District Collector Office VOC Nagar on 28.06.2024.
The CPIO, District Collector Office VOC Nagar, reply is not available on the record.
3. Having not received any response from the CPIO the appellant filed First Appeal on 26.06.2024. The FAA order is not available on the record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approach the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/ Complaint.
Page 2 of 75. The matter was heard by the Commission on dated 04.02.2026 and an interim decision was passed by the Commission on 09.02.2026 stating as under:
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2024, to which no reply was furnished by the CPIO. The Commission further notes that the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2024; however, no reply was given by the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which amounts to a clear violation of the statutory obligations under the RTI Act.
The Commission further observes that the RTI application was transferred only on 28.06.2024, reflecting a delay in transfer, contrary to the mandate of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The Commission notes that Section 6(3) of the RTI Act casts a mandatory obligation upon the CPIO to transfer an RTI application, or such part thereof, to the concerned public authority within five days of its receipt, in case the information sought is held by or is more closely connected with another public authority.
The Commission also notes that the prima-facie the subject of the sought information, directly pertains to the respondent public authority, however, the RTI application had been wrongly transferred to the District Collector, without verifying their own records.
The Commission finds that the respondent CPIO has failed to clearly identify the custodian of records relating to the military survey numbers and the requisition proceedings. The Respondent has also not placed any material fact on record to justify the transfer of the RTI application to an another public authority.
The Commission observes that the respondent CPIO has failed to adhere to the statutory mandate, as the RTI application was transferred after an inordinate delay and that too without justifying how the sought information, does not pertains to them. The Commission expresses its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the Page 3 of 7 spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Accordingly, the respondent CPIO is hereby show caused, calling upon him to submit a written explanation, along with the comments of FAA, to explain as to why penal action should not be taken under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, for his failure to furnish reply to the RTI Application and for delayed and wrongful transfer of the RTI application to another public authority. His reply shall be submitted within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Notwithstanding the above direction the Commission also directs the respondent CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a point- wise available information to the Appellant/ Complainant, free of cost, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
6. In compliance of show cause notice issued in interim decision dated 09.02.2026 the respondent CPIO submitted a written explanation dated 06.03.2026 stating that the RTI application dated 22.05.2024 was received in their office. Upon preliminary examination, as per the records maintained by office an area measuring 0.11 acres of land in Revenue Survey No.342/2B at Morai village is a Defence land under the management of OMG (copy of extract from the Military Land Register is enclosed). Sy.No.1 to 301 of Morai village were not found in the Military Land Register. Authority for disbursement of compensation to the land owners of the requisitioned land was the District Collector. Accordingly, the RTI application was transferred to the Office of the District Collector on 28.06.2024 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for necessary action, as it was believed that the said authority would be the custodian of the requested information. However, it is submitted that the delay in transfer occurred due to administrative oversight and the need to verify the jurisdiction and custody of the records, as the matter involved historical records relating to survey numbers and requisition proceedings. It is submitted that he regret the inconvenience caused to the applicant and assure the Hon'ble Commission that the lapse was purely inadvertent and not intentional. Now the RTI application has been re-examined, and 21 numbers of files having relevant information regarding Morai village have been traced out from the old records and found that the lands at Morai village were requisitioned under Defence of India Act during the period of World War II in parts for various purposes in various interval periods and comprising large volume of data. Since, information sought by the applicant cannot be provided in point wise / summary manner. Therefore, vide letter Page 4 of 7 No.L/19/RTI/Vol.XV/MC, dated 06.03.2026 had forwarded copies of all files to Appellant/Complainant, free of cost, in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Commission. He submitted that the lapse occurred due to bona fide administrative reasons and not due to any malafide intention or willful negligence. He further assured that greater care and diligence will be exercised in handling RTI matters in the future.
7. Further in compliance of show cause notice issued in interim decision dated 09.02.2026 the FAA submitted a written explanation dated 06.03.2026 stating that the reply submitted by the CPIO in response to the Show Cause Notice has been carefully examined along with the relevant records. It is observed that the matter involved verification of old and voluminous records relating to land requisition proceedings. The explanation offered by the CPIO appears reasonable and the delay seems to have occurred due to administrative circumstances rather than any willful negligence or malafide intention to deny information under the RTI Act. In land matters District Collector is the Competent Authority for Acquisition /Requisition of land for any Government Agency and custodian of holding land records. Since, the documents such as Village Maps, Details of creation of Survey Numbers, Details of Awardees as sought by the Applicant are under the custody of District Collector, application had been transferred to the Office of District Collector by the CPIO is reasonable. Further, CPIO has traced 21 files from old records relating to Morai Village and has forwarded copies of the same to the Appellant/Complainant free of cost vide letter dated 06.03.2026 In view of the above, it appears that the lapse was procedural and occurred due to bona fide administrative circumstances, and that the CPIO has since complied with the directions of the Hon'ble Commission by furnishing the available records, the prayer of CPIO to condone the procedural lapse and drop the proposed penal proceedings under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, may please be consider.
Letter dated 19.02.2026 calling the appellant/complainant to inspect the files is found enclosed along with Letter dated 06.03.2026 providing copies of all the 21 files.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant/Complainant: Mr. Nagraj M Respondent: Mr. Gokal Krishnan, Asst. Admin Officer & CPIO Page 5 of 7
8. The Appellant/Complainant inter alia submitted that information is not provided in point wise manner. It is also submitted that total village maps and Fild Measurement Book have also not been provided.
9. The respondent submitted that all the available information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 06.03.2026. It is also submitted that only such information can be provided which is available with the respondent. It is submitted that village maps, award details, compensation records may be available with the state government.
Decision:
10.The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and perusal of the records and written submissions notes that a show cause notice was issued to the respondent CPIO vide interim decision dated 09.02.2026 for delayed and wrongful transfer of the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, and for failure to furnish a timely reply to the Appellant/Complainant. In compliance with the said directions, the respondent CPIO and FAA submitted a written explanation dated 06.03.2026, explaining the circumstances leading to the delay and the action subsequently taken to comply with the Commission's directions.
The Commission notes from the written explanation dated 06.03.2026 that the respondent traced 21 files containing information pertaining to the subject matter of the RTI application. The Commission further notes that vide letter dated 19.02.2026, the Appellant/Complainant was invited to inspect the relevant records, and thereafter, vide letter dated 06.03.2026, copies of all the traced files were furnished to the Appellant/Complainant free of cost.
The Commission also notes the submissions of the respondent that available information has been furnished to the appellant. The Commission also notes Morai village maps, award details, compensation records, and related land acquisition or requisition documents are ordinarily maintained by the District Collector and therefore the RTI application was transferred to the concerned authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
The Commission observes that under the RTI Act, the obligation of a CPIO is to provide only such information as is available and held by it and that there is no requirement to create or compile information in a particular format if such format does not exist on record. From the material placed before it, the Commission is satisfied that the respondent has now furnished all available and traceable records relevant to the RTI application.
Page 6 of 7In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that the explanation offered by the respondent is satisfactory and that no malafide intention or wilful obstruction to disclosure of information is established. Accordingly, the show cause proceedings initiated against the respondent CPIO under Section 20(1) and Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 are dropped.
Nevertheless, the Commission directs the respondent CPIO to exercise due diligence and caution in future, while dealing with RTI applications, particularly in ensuring timely transfer of applications under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, so as to uphold the spirit and mandate of transparency under the Act.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal and Complaint are disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date:12.05.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. The CPIO Defence Estate Office, Madras Circle, 306, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600018
2. Mr. Nagaraj M Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)