Central Information Commission
Laik Ahmed vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 16 November, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/129763
F. No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/122637
F. No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/129764
F. No. CIC/REVDP/A/2017/109519
F. No. CIC/REVDP/A/2017/109522
F. No. CIC/REVDP/A/2017/109521
Date of Hearing : 16.08.2017
Date of Decision : 09.10.2017
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 10.05.2018, 25.10.2018
Date of Final Decision : 28.05.2018, 15.11.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Laik Ahmed
Respondent : Superintendent (G.A)
O/o Additional District Magistrate,
GNCTD
Through:- Sh. Bir Singh, Sh. Ashok
Kumar DC(South)
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAA
129763 17.02.2016 12.05.2016 22.12.2016 10.03.2017
122367 26.05.2016 11.07.2016 18.07.2016 02.02.2017
129764 03.10.2016 28.11.2016 08.02.2017 10.03.2017
109519 02.09.2015 21.11.2015 27.04.2016 06.06.2016
109522 30.06.2015 12.08.2015 27.04.2016 - -
109521 02.09.2015 21.10.2015 21.12.2015 09.02.2016
Since both parties are same in the above mentioned appeals, these are
clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings.
Show Cause Decision
Information sought
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/129763 CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/122637 CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/129764 Page 1 of 11 Vide RTI applications dated 17.02.2016, 03.10.2016 and 26.05.2016 addressed to O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hauz Khas, the appellant sought almost identical information regarding Revenue Estate Village (1.) Begumpur, (2.) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as per the Khasra numbers as mentioned in the respective RTI applications. In this regard, the appellant sought inspection of file and supply of certified copies of relevant documents of the said Villages. He also sought the following information inter alia:-
1. Whether there is any Award/Notification about the above said Khasra Nos., if yes, out of each Khasra, how much area has been awarded and how much is remaining.
2. Whether payment of compensation has been made, if yes, which are the owners who have been given the compensation and by whom related to above said Khasra Nos.
3. If the answer to above is yes, how much and when the compensation was given to the respective land owner of the above said Khasra Nos.
4. The Jamabandi of the above said Khasra Nos. have been made during 1948-49 and 1960-61, copies of Jamabandi may kindly be provided.
5. Khasra Girdavri of the above said Khasra Nos. have been made during 1948-49 and 1960-61, copies of Khasra Girdavri may Kindly be provided.
6. In case handing-over and taking over of the above said Khasra has been done, if yes, inform the department between which the handing-over and taking over has been done.
In response to RTI application dated 17.02.2016, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.05.2016 to the appellant. Having not received information on point no. (ii) to (vi) from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA directed the SPIO/SDM (HK) & SPIO/LA (Supdt. GA) to provide appropriate reply to appellant within 10 days.
In response to RTI application dated 26.05.2016, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.07.2016 to the appellant. Having not received information on point no. (ii) to (v) from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA directed the CPIO/Supdt. (GA)/SPIO(LA) to provide appropriate reply to appellant within 10 days and personally monitor ensuring reply is provided to the appellant in response to the RTI query within stipulated period of 30 days.
In response to RTI application dated 03.10.2016, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.11.2016 to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 10.03.2017 informed that SPIO/N.T. (LA) give reply on point no. 1 and point no. 2 to 8 is available with SPIO/SDM(HK). Therefore, FAA directed the SPIO/S.D.M (HK) & SPIO/LA (Supdt. GA) to provide appropriate reply as Page 2 of 11 available on record to the appellant within 10 days. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approach the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties appeared during the hearing and reiterated their respective contentions in a nutshell. The appellant submitted a case-wise written submissions in addition to his oral contentions, which are as follows:
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/129763 (I) Offer No. and LRs. copy has been given but no information has not been given about how much land has been awarded and how much land has been left in each Khasra. (Relating to ADM-LAC- South). (II) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM - LAC - South) III) No reply has been given in this regard- (Relating to ADM-LAC) (IV) No reply has been given in this regard (Relating to SDM HK) (V) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM-HK) (VI) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM-LAC Land & Building Deptt. and DDA) CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/122637 (I) Offer No. and L.Rs. copy has been given but no information has not been given about how much land has been awarded and how land much has been left in each Khasra. (Relating to ADM-LAC- South). (II) No reply has been given in this regard(Relating to ADM- LAC) (III) No reply has been given in this regard(Relating to ADM- LAC) (IV) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK) (V) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK) (VI) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM-LAC Land & Building Deptt. and DDA) CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/129764 (I) Offer No. and L.Rs. copy has been given but no information j^ has not been given about how much land has been awarded and how much land has been left in each Khasra. (Relating to ADM-LAC- South).
(II) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM LAC) (Ill) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM LAC) (IV) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK) (V) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK) (VI) No reply has been given in this regard.(Relating to DDA, MCD.
Land & Development Office).
(VII) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK) (VIII) No reply has been given in this regard.(Relating to ADM-LAC, Land & Building Deptt. and DDA.Page 3 of 11
The appellant while making his submissions during the hearing has emphatically pointed out that conduct of the Respondent is one of deliberate evasion and unreasoned denial of information by the SDM, Hauz Khas. It is noted that the concerned official has not even appeared during the hearing to explain the cause of complete silence and non furnishing of the information. The Respondents present for hearing are unable to explain the reason for non availability of documents as sought by the appellant. It has been contended during the hearing that after acquisition of lands, no compensation have been paid so far with respect to the lands, as enquired by the appellant and the Respondent states that no compensation claim is pending with them either. The Respondent has replied that whatever information was available with them have been provided to the appellant. Though no copy of any such information could be seen on record nor submitted/brought on record by the Respondent.
CIC/REVDP/A/2017/109519 CIC/REVDP/A/2017/109522 CIC/REVDP/A/2017/109521 Vide RTI applications dated 02.09.2015 & 30.06.2015 addressed to O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hauz Khas, the appellant sought almost identical information regarding Mauza Hauzrani, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi as per the Khasra numbers mentioned in the respective RTI applications. In this regard, the appellant sought inspection of file and supply of certified copies of relevant documents of the said Villages and also sought following information:-
1. Whether there is any Award/Notification about the above said Khasra Nos., if yes, out of each Khasra, how much area has been awarded and how much is remaining.
2. If the award or notification was given. So what is the purpose.
3. If the answer to above is yes, how much and when the compensation was given to the respective land owner of the above said Khasra Nos.
4. The Jamabandi of the above said Khasra Nos. have been made during 1948-49, copies of Jamabandi may kindly be provided.
5. Khasra Girdavri of the above said Khasra Nos. have been made during 2014-15, copies of Khasra Girdavri may Kindly be provided.
6. In case handing-over and taking over of the above said Khasra has been done, if yes, inform the department between which the handing-over and taking over has been done.
The response to the RTI application was sent alongwith CPIO's covering letter dated 12.08.2015, which failed to satisfy the appellant's queries. Hence the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA on 21.12.2015. The FAA vide letter dated 19.02.2016 directed the SPIO (Hauz Khas) to provide Page 4 of 11 appropriate reply/information against queries no. 4 and 5, to the appellant within 15 days. Even after the direction of FAA, appellant did not receive any information from CPIO. In non-compliance of FAO, the appellant wrote a letter to the FAA on 27.04.2016. FAA in response of appellant letter dated 27.04.2016, passed an order on 06.06.2016 quoting CIC decision in case no. CIC/AT/2006/00443 dtd 12.12.2006 and CIC/OK/A/2006/00121 dated 27.06.2006 as under:-
"..............Right to Information is a right conferred on the citizens of India only that too to the individuals. The expression used in the Act, thus, a company, firm, association or persons or trusts etc., are not treated as citizens and only a natural born citizen is entitled to information under the RTI Act, 2005."
Further, FAA also advised the SPIO/SDM(Hauz Khas) to personally monitor the RTI applications & Orders of the Appellate Authorities under the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the response, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties were present for the hearing and the appellant submitted a case-wise written submissions in addition to his oral contentions, which are as follows:
CIC/REV. DP/A/2017/109522 (I) Offer No. and L.Rs. copy has been given but no information has not been given about how much land has been awarded and how much land has been left in each Khasra. (Relating to ADM-LAC South). (II) No reply has been given in this regard.(Relating to ADM- LAC South).
(Ill) No reply has been given in this regard.(Relating to ADM- LAC South) (IV) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK). (V) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK).
CIC/REV. DP/A/2017/109519 I) Offer No. and LRs. copy has been given but no information has not been given about how much land has been awarded and how much land has been left in each Khasra. (Relating to ADM-LAC- South). (II) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM LAC) (Ill) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM LAC) (IV) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK, Land & Building Deptt. and DDA)~ (V) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK) (VI) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM HK).
Page 5 of 11CIC/REVDP/A/2017/109521 (I) Offer No. and L.Rs. copy has been given but no information has not been given about how much land has been awarded and how much land has been left in each Khasra. (Relating to ADM-LAC- South). (II) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM LAC) (III) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM LAC) (IV) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM-LAC, Land & Building Deptt. and DDA) (V) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to SDM- HK) (VI) No reply has been given in this regard.(Relating to SDM- HK). VII) No reply has been given in this regard. (Relating to ADM-LAC, Land & Building Deptt and DDA Apart from the above case specific submissions made by the appellant, the appellant has contended certain generic issues providing a brief background for filing of these appeals. It is his case that as per Notification/Award/Land Reform Report observes that neither entire land nor entire Khasra has been acquired by Land Acquisition Collector and Land & Building Department and handed over to Delhi Development Authority or any other Deptt. As per Roznamcha No. 165 dated 22.12.1982 though mutation of the land has been done and land has been handed over to Society but factually neither compensation has been given nor the remaining land has been returned to the owners of the land. It has also been submitted by the appellant that some Officers/officials of Revenue Deptt. of DDA, L & B / L.A.C. in connivance with the Bhu-Mafia, got most of the remaining land distributed among themselves due to which both Govt. as well as owners of the land have suffered enormously.
He has further pointed out that while the land was notified for acquisition from different villages under Notification of Offer No. 1000A whereas as per record available with L.A.C., the Notification itself has been cancelled on 1.6.1968 vide Inkal No. 894. And despite this, actual Revenue Records indicate that land of those Khasras have not been returned to the land owners and no correction in Revenue record in this regard has been done. Thus neither land has been returned to the land owners nor correction in Revenue Record has been carried out. Subsequently, some Officers/officials of DDA/L&B and LAC in connivance with Bhu-mafia issued another Notification bearing No. F-9(22)/78/L8iB dated 22.2.1979 declaring such entire land as Nazul Land for development. Thereafter, some officers/officials of DDA in connivance with Bhu-Mafia usurped most of the earmarked "Nazul land and distributed among their kith and kin at very low rates allegedly for developing Schools, Colleges, Hospitals, etc.. The lands have since been further transferred and sold at high market rates to third parties, leading to loss to the Public Exchequer as well as the erstwhile and original owners of the land.
Page 6 of 11Hence, the appellant took recourse of the RTI Act to unearth the racquet of illegal transactions of usurping of land of poor landowners under the guise of Acquisition by the Government. However, no such transfer of land was recorded in the Revenue records and neither compensation was paid to the landowners nor the land returned to the owners. Moreover, when the matter was brought before the Court, facts were distorted and misrepresented before the Court to state that though compensation payment has been processed by Revenue Deptt., the same has not been released to the land-owners as yet. On the basis of such false and incorrect representation before the Court, the Respondent in connivance with certain corrupt officials from the Police force alongwith the Bhu-Mafia arrogate the land from the legitimate owners. Consequently such deprivation and economic loss weighs so heavily and strikes such a heavy blow on the farmers that they are compelled to commit suicide rather than face abject poverty. Thus, the nation is being robbed off not only the Revenue which should have been legitimately deposited towards transfer of these lands, but also of the army of its farmers, who provide food to the nation. It is pertinent to note that this dereliction of duty on the part of Revenue Deptt. has resulted in almost 3 crore cases pending in various Courts of the country, of which a huge chunk of cases could have been avoided had the public officials acted with diligence and integrity. This would not only save the public revenue and lives of the farmers but also prevent wastage of several judicial hours on such needless litigation, which should have been addressed and remedied at the level of the Public Revenue officials.
After hearing the contentions and perusal of record, the Commission vide order dated 09.10.2017 held as follows:
"..the Commission observes complete absence of any reasonable explanation from the Respondents in question, for the failure in dissemination of information. The conduct as exhibited by the officials of the various departments indicates gross dereliction of duty and failure of the PIOs who were custodian of information. The PIO, ADM-LAC and the PIO, SDM-Hauz Khas are directed to ensure that information as desired by the appellant is furnished to him within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
In complete defiance of the specific orders of the FAA, the respondent has merely harped on the point that Payment related file is not available without making the slightest endeavour to discharge their duty in the capacity of PIO under the RTI Act. Hence, the PIOs are found responsible for violation of provisions of the RTI Act and denial of information. Accordingly, the Commission directs Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice upon:Page 7 of 11
1. PIO/ADM-LAC, Land & Building Deptt and DDA for defiance and non compliance of the FAA's specific orders, for non furnishing of information under the RTI Act and for causing deliberate obstruction in the dissemination of information; AND
2. The then SDM, Hauz Khas for furnishing neither information to the appellant nor any explanation and not even attending the hearing to explain the cause of complete denial of information."
Show Cause Hearing: 10.05.2018
1. Pursuant to the above directions, the Commission is in receipt of a letter dated 08.05.2018 from Sh. Tanvir Ahmed-ADM(South), Noticee No. 1, relevant excerpts whereof are as follows:
"The SPIO of LAC Branch is Sh. Anil Tirkey, Superintendant (GA Branch. In the capacity of the FAA, I have already heard the appeal of Sh. Laik Ahmed in the case no. 1169, 971, 1140, 1064, 972, 1170 and passed the order which is enclosed herewith for your kind information. As per the above mentioned order, the SPIO/LAC Branch has already provided the information to the appellant vide letter no. F.9/NT/LA/RTI/2015-16/71-72,73-74,75-76,77-78,79-80 and 81-82 dated 07.05.2018. It is further submitted that due to sudden demise of my father -in-law, I had gone to his native town and was on leave on the date of hearing i.e. 12.04.2018, therefore, I could not attend the hearing. I sincerely apologize for not conveying my leave to the commission in due time."
The aforementioned submissions from the ADM, South brings forth the following facts:
1. The ADM is the FAA in this case and had adjudicated the matter in the stage of First Appeal passing specific directions on 10.03.2017;
2. The SPIO/LA and SPIO/SDM(Hauz Khas) as on 10.03.2017 were directed by the ADM-South to furnish the information within ten days of receipt of the said order;
3. The SPIO/LA is Mr. Anil Tirkey has not appeared during the hearing of the Show Cause case;
4. The FAA has claimed that information as directed by him on 10.03.2017, has been furnished by SPIO/LAC vide letter dated 07.05.2018, copy whereof is not found on record;
5. No explanation/justification for delay of more than a year [10.03.2017 to 07.05.2018] has been placed on record by Sh. Anil Tirkey-SPIO/LAC.
Thus it is nowhere substantiated from records that information as sought was actually furnished vide 07.05.2018 neither is there any explanation for the inordinate delay of over one year. Hence, Registry Page 8 of 11 of this Bench is directed to issue Show Cause Notice to Sh. Anil Tirkey-SPIO/LAC - Noticee no. 1 clarifying:
i) whether and what information was furnished vide letters dated 07.05.2018, as stated by the FAA; and
ii) reason for delay of one year [10.03.2017 to 07.05.2018] in complying with orders of the FAA.
Clarifications against both of the aforementioned facts should reach the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order.
2. A communication dated 09.05.2018 has been received from the Noticee No. 2, the then SDM(Hauz Khas), Sh. Ravinder Kumar which reveals as follows:
"The undersigned is presently working as Dy. Director SSA in the Directorate of Education since after relieving from the post of SDM (Hauz Khas) on 04.01.2018. All the records pertaining to RTI and all such matters dealt by me as SDM (Hauz Khas) remain in the custody of the office of SDM (Hauz Khas) only. Further, undersigned went through the show cause notice dated 12.03.2018 and found that the said show cause notice was issued to the then PIO ADM LAC New Delhi and the present PIO, SDM (HQ) District-South was to serve show cause notice to the said officer. There was no mention of the SDM (Hauz Khas) either present or the previous in this show cause notice so undersigned wrote a letter dated 03.04.2018 to the SDM (HQ) district South informing him that all the records pertaining to the RTI application and replies sent are available in the office of SDM (Hauz Khas) only and therefore, any information as required to be provided to the RTI applicant may be provided by the present SDM (HQ)."
Perusal of the letter dated 03.04.2018, submitted by the same Noticee No.2 however reveals that he has stated that he was relieved from the post of SDM Hauz Khas on 14.01.2017.
From perusal of the submissions of the Notice No.2, it is not clear whether he was relieved from the post of SM, Hauz Khas on 14.01.2017 or 04.01.2018. Neither of the contention is anyway supported by any documentary evidence about his exact date of transfer to the Department of Education. Irrespective of the date of his relieving from the post of SDM, Hauz Khas, it is nowhere disputed that he held charge as SDM-Khas in the year 2016 when the RTI applications were filed and/or on 10.03.2017, when the FAA had directed both the SPIO/LAC and the SDM-Hauz Khas to furnish the requisite information to the appellant. Thus the onus and culpability Page 9 of 11 of responding to the RTI application/s unavoidably accrues upon the Noticee No. 2-Sh. Ravinder Kumar.
Since he has been transferred to another department, hence he is granted additional time of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order to submit:
i) proof of exact date of his leaving the post of SDM-Hauz Khas to join in Department of Education;
ii) proof of having provided information to the appellant during his tenure; or
iii) reasonable explanation for not having provided the information The Noticee No. 2 must send in his submissions in response to the aforementioned points within two weeks of receipt of this order.
It is made clear to both the Noticees that no further extension of time shall be granted after 20.06.2018 and the matter shall be decided based on records available.
Show Cause Hearing: 25.10.2018 The Commission notes from perusal of records that in response to the Show Cause issued to the Noticee No. 1, a communication dated 09.07.2018 is found on record received from Supdt/SPIO((LA), relevant portion whereof is as under:
"....i) As per records available in this office/branch all the requisite information (along with certified copies of relevant records) have been provided to Sh. Laik Ahmad and copy of the same have also been provided to your good office on 10.05.2018. Sh. Laik Ahmad have also been obtained the copies of all the available relevant records after doing the inspection of the record.
ii) As regards delay in complying with order of the FAA, it is submitted that during the period from 10.03.2017 to 07.05.2018, the officials of Land Acquisition Branch tried to their best efforts to trace/dig out the records pertaining to RTI of Sh. Laik Ahmad.
Hence, due to non availability of the complete relevant record, we could not provide the requisite information in time and inordinate delay in providing the information is deeply regretted..."
The Commission is also in receipt of communications dated 18.07.2018 and 25.10.2018 from the Noticee No. 2 confirming that he was transferred and subsequently relieved from the post of SDM(Hauz Khas) on 04.01.2017 to join the Education Deptt. Inadvertently, in my letter dated 09.05.2018, the date was mentioned as 04.01.2018 instead of 04.01.2017. The same is regretted. The Noticee No. 2 - Sh. Ravinder Kumar has placed on record documentary evidence in the form of relieving order dated 04.01.2017 from Office of the Page 10 of 11 District Magistrate South and joining order dated 11.01.2017 in the Directorate of Education as Asstt. Director, to support his contention that he was relieved from the office of DM(South) on 04.01.2017. Furthermore, he has submitted documentary proof of the fact that the RTI applications received from the appellant viz. Sh. Laik Ahmed have been duly responded by him and those that have not been responded, do not pertain to his tenure and thus he was not accountable for the same.
The Noticee No. 2 appeared during hearing held on 25.10.2018 and reiterated the submissions as already submitted through the written records.
The Commission finds the response submitted by the Noticee No. 2 self explanatory and satisfactory and in line with the specific directions issued by the Commission. Accordingly, the Show Cause proceedings initiated against the Noticee No. 2 are directed to be dropped. In so far as Noticee No. 1 is concerned, the Commission does note that requisite and available information have been made available to the appellant. For the untraceable records, the Noticee No. 1 has explained that attempt at tracing out the records has led to delay in compliance of the orders of the FAA. The explanation of the Noticee No. 1 is found satisfactory and accepted as such, considering the voluminous records sought by the Appellant through numerous RTI applications. Accordingly, the Commission finds this a fit case to drop the penal proceedings and discharge the Noticee No. 1.
The case is thus closed and file is directed to be consigned to Record Room.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 11 of 11