Central Information Commission
Prem Lata vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 15 May, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SDMCC/A/2017/146547
Smt. Prem Lata ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO, Dy. Assessor & Collector/Central ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Zone, SDMC, Sanwal Nagar, Delhi.
Through:
Shri Ajay Goyal, APIO
Shri Ranjendra Singh
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2019
Date of Decision : 14.05.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.01.2017
PIO replied on : 02.03.2017
First Appeal filed on : 21.03.2017
First Appellate Order on : 12.04.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 07.07.2017
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.01.2017, seeking information on four points:
1. A copy of Documents of Property No. J-39/5, Amritpuri-B, New Delhi submitted by my father Late Shri Kanshi Ram for the purpose of House Tax Assessment may please be provided to me.
2. How much house tax is payable against above mentioned property?
3. Is there any outstanding amount payable against this property?
4. When was the last payment of house tax made?Page 1 of 4
2. The present Second Appeal is predicated against the reply of PIO and FAO wherein the information sought was held as pertaining to third party and hence exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The parties were heard at length. Since the PIO has claimed exemption under Section 8, he was heard first. He submits that the Appellant had sought information regarding a property which is owned by one Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Late Kanshi Ram. He submits that since the Appellant was neither the recorded owner of the property in question nor had applied under consent from the recorded owner, the information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In the alternative, the Appellant was called upon to bring authority letter or No Objection Certificate from the recorded owner of the property to secure access to the information sought.
4. On the other hand, the Appellant states to be born from the relationship of Late Kanshi Ram and Smt. Krishna Devi. It is submitted by the Appellant that both her parents were married prior to commencement of their relationship and their respective spouses were alive at the time of her birth. To support her claim, she had relied upon copy of her passport which supports her claim. It is her contention that while her late father Kanshi Ram had bequeathed property bearing no. J-39/5, Amritpuri-B to her, by an oral Will in his lifetime, later upon death of his father, her mother Smt. Krishna Devi usurped the property and ceded it to be used by children born with another man. It is her contention that the Department has recorded mutation of property in question behind her back and since the present owner Smt. Krishna Devi has acquired ownership of the property from the Appellant's father, no infringement of privacy would take place if the information sought is made available to her.
5. In rebuttal, the PIO has drawn attention of the Commission towards the FAO, wherein it has been categorically recorded that late Kanshi Ram never submitted any documents with the respondent public authority relating to ownership of the property in question. He submits that mutation entry in Municipal records was granted in name of Smt. Krishna Devi on the basis of testament (Will) made in year 1978 duly probated by a Court of Law vide judgment delivered in year 2003. However, the Appellant feigns ignorance about any such probate proceedings since not being a party to the same. She alleges that Court order has been obtained with fraud. She fervently submitted that any information of about the mutation of property or the judgment of Court on probate would enable her seek justice in the matter. Upon a query by the Commission, the Appellant states to be born and brought up as Hindu by her parents.
Decision:
Page 2 of 46. As far as the factual contentions of the Appellant are concerned, the Commission not being a fact finding body need not express any views. Though the Appellant has produced some documentary evidence to establish her lineage, the same is of no consequence since as on date of making RTI application, Smt. Krishna Devi has acquired title of the property through process of law. Thus the information sought is clearly third party information and the decisions of the PIO as well as FAA are lawful.
7. The Commission in view of the facts of the case deems it proper to expand the scope of the present appeal. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act declared that children born from void or voidable marriages shall be legitimate and entitled to succeed to the estate of their parents irrespective of the status of marriage of their parents.
Section 16: Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages:-
(1) Notwithstanding that marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.
(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.
8. Hence, as per law, the Appellant was an heir apparent to her father at the time of death of late Kanshi Ram. In view of the testamentary disposition (Will) recorded by her father late Kanshi Ram, the Appellant had a right to participate in the probate proceedings. Section 263 in The Indian Succession Act acknowledges non-citing of a necessary party as a ground Page 3 of 4 to annul any probate obtained under law. As per the Appellant, she was not made a party in the probate proceedings. However, it transpires that the Appellant is not a rank outsider from whom all details of the case must be kept guarded.
9. In the considered opinion of the Commission, there is no legal impediment if the details of Court order granting probate in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi is shared with the Appellant. A pronouncement of a Court of law on probate is not a personal document since the proceedings are deemed to be in rem(against the world at large). While the acquirer of estate under a probate acquires a right against all claimants and world at large, there is no reason to deem the same as private.
10. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to share information regarding the Court order under which mutation was granted in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi. Information shall be furnished within 2 weeks free of cost. The Appellant may seek redressal of her grievance before an appropriate forum, if advised so. It is clarified that no expression recorded in the present decision shall be reckoned as finding of fact by the Commission. Observations and facts enumerated herein are confined to the adjudication under RTI Act. Nothing in the present decision shall be construed against Smt. Krishna Devi, who is not a party herein.
11. The PIO shall file a report of compliance of this decision by 20.06.2019. The Appeal is disposed of.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4