Central Information Commission
Mrlayak Ram vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 February, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.Nos. CIC/SA/A/2013/000101-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000099 -YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000098-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000097-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000095-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000093-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000087-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000086-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000085-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000084-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000083-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000082-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000081-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000080-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000079-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000078-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000077-YA
CIC/YA/A/2014/000157
CIC/YA/A/2014/000156
CIC/YA/A/2014/000155
CIC/YA/A/2014/000154
CIC/YA/A/2014/000153
CIC/YA/A/2014/000152
CIC/YA/A/2014/000151
CIC/YA/A/2014/000150
CIC/YA/A/2014/000149
CIC/YA/A/2014/000148
CIC/YA/A/2014/000147
CIC/YA/A/2014/000146
CIC/SA/A/2014/000049-YA
CIC/SA/A/2014/000048-YA
CIC/SA/A/2014/000047-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000103-YA
CIC/SA/A/2013/000102-YA
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2015 & 20.02.2015
Date of Decision : 20.02.2015
Appellant : Shri Layak Ram
Delhi
Respondent : Shri Niwas, AE, NZ, on behalf of PIO
Shri Narendra Singh, Office Incharge
Building Dept. Rohini Zone
Shri Anil Aggarwal, AE(B)/CLZ
Shri Vinod Bansal, AE(B)/SPZ
Shri Tilak Raj, SPZ
Shri Arvind K. Malik, AE/CZ
Shri Rajesh Sharma, AE, KBZ
North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC)
Delhi
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Information sought:
The appellant sought information regarding action taken on his application dt. 31.05.2013 for regularization of construction on his property no. 315, situated in Old Lal Dora Aabadi Deh 1908-09, Khasra no. 145/1 at Village Khera Kalan, Delhi-
110082, reasons for rejecting the same by the respondent public authority, the basis on which his property was demolished along with the copies of relevant orders from competent authorities for rejection of his application for regularization, notices sent to him before demolition and number of properties situated in Old Lal Dora Aabadi Deh 1908-09 which were regularized, etc. Relevant facts emerging during hearings:
Both parties are present and heard. The appellant informed that some more of his cases were listed for hearing on the same subject matter and requested that they be heard and disposed of together. The respondents also concurred with the same. Accordingly, following files are being clubbed and heard together:-
CIC/SA/A/2014/000050-YA, CIC/SA/A/2014/000035-YA, CIC/YA/A/2014/001272, CIC/YA/A/2014/001271, CIC/YA/A/2014/001270, CIC/YA/A/2014/001269, CIC/YA/A/2014/001268, CIC/YA/A/2014/001267, CIC/YA/A/2014/001266, CIC/YA/A/2014/001265, CIC/YA/A/2014/001264, CIC/YA/A/2014/001263, CIC/YA/A/2014/001262, CIC/YA/A/2014/001261, CIC/YA/A/2014/001260, CIC/YA/A/2014/001259, CIC/YA/A/2014/001258, CIC/YA/A/2014/001257, CIC/YA/A/2014/001256, CIC/YA/A/2014/001255, CIC/YA/A/2014/001254, CIC/YA/A/2014/001253, CIC/YA/A/2014/001252, CIC/YA/A/2014/001251, CIC/YA/A/2014/001250, CIC/YA/A/2014/001249, CIC/YA/A/2014/001248, CIC/YA/A/2014/001049, CIC/YA/A/2014/000970, CIC/YA/A/2014/000969, CIC/YA/A/2014/000968, CIC/YA/A/2014/000967, CIC/YA/A/2014/000966, CIC/YA/A/2014/000965, CIC/YA/A/2014/000964, CIC/YA/A/2014/000324, CIC/YA/A/2014/000312, CIC/YA/A/2014/000311, CIC/YA/A/2014/000308, CIC/YA/A/2014/000307, CIC/YA/A/2014/000305, CIC/YA/A/2014/000302, CIC/YA/A/2014/000301, CIC/YA/A/2014/000300, CIC/YA/A/2014/000192, CIC/YA/A/2014/000181, CIC/YA/A/2014/000180, CIC/YA/A/2014/000179, CIC/YA/A/2014/000178, CIC/YA/A/2014/000177, CIC/YA/A/2014/000176, CIC/YA/A/2014/000175, CIC/YA/A/2014/000167, CIC/YA/A/2014/000166, CIC/YA/A/2014/000165, CIC/YA/A/2014/000164, CIC/YA/A/2014/000163, CIC/YA/A/2014/000162, CIC/YA/A/2014/000161, CIC/YA/A/2014/000160, CIC/YA/A/2014/000159, CIC/YA/A/2014/000158.
Both the parties are heard at length.
The appellant submitted that he had applied for regularization of construction on his property bearing no. 315 situated in Old Lal Dora Aabadi Deh 1908-09, Khasra no. 145/1 at Village Khera Kalan, Delhi-110082, on 31.05.2013, which was, rejected, and his property demolished, at a later date. He further submitted that the payment charges for regularization of his property were not intimated to him. He alleged that his regularization file was not dealt with as per the prescribed norms and procedures and even after filing the RTI application, information with respect to the same was not provided. Demolition action was taken on his property which was not as per the procedure. This is why he filed multiple number of RTI applications to get the information with respect to demolition and regularization of his property. In the meantime, there were other unauthorized constructions carried out of godowns but no action was taken. Thus, he also filed various RTI applications in this regard.
The respondent submitted that all the RTI applications of the appellant were replied within time and information sought was provided to him as per the available record. But since, most of the RTI applications of the appellant were not seeking precise information and were in the form of asking for clarifications/interpretations, the PIO was not in a position to provide exact information which the appellant had sought. He further submitted that they were ready to provide any information w.r.t. appellant's RTI applications as directed by the Commission.
The appellant stated that the projection of his land is not on municipal land but falls on the Gram Sabha Land but the MCD demolished it illegally. The respondent stated that for regularization of property, an applicant has to file an affidavit, as substantial proof of ownership, after obtaining a certificate of correctness of size, shape, area, etc. of the plot from the revenue dept. along with its location in lal dora. The respondent asked the appellant, with the permission of the Commission, whether he had stated that his property is situated on the Gram Sabha land or lal dora when filing the affidavit, to which the appellant stated that he had mentioned it as lal dora, otherwise, they do not get any facilities. The appellant further submitted documents that Khasra No. 145/1 belongs to the Gram Sabha. On query by the Commission as to how MCD took action on land belonging to the revenue dept., the respondent stated vide an order dt. 18.01.2013, passed by Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, it was observed that officials of revenue dept. have been checking unauthorized constructions, issuing notices, in the areas not falling under their jurisdiction and it was decided that the Revenue Dept. would seek necessary assistance whenever specially requested by land owning agencies or by the Govt.
Decision:
After hearing both parties and on perusal of record, the Commission finds that the appellant has filed 96 RTI applications seeking information, which can be clubbed into 6 broad categories:-
1. The basis on which demolition action was taken on the appellant's property when his property no 315, situated in Khasra No. 145/1, Old Lal Dora Aabadi Deh 1908-09 was under the jurisdiction of the concerned SDM.
2. Information on action taken on his application dt. 31.05.2013 for regularization of construction on appellant's property.
3. Information regarding demolition of his property, i.e. details of booking of his property, notices issued to the owner for booking and demolition thereafter along with relevant note-sheets, till the date of actual demolition.
4. Information on alleged unauthorized construction of godowns in residential as well as industrial plots in Lal dora, since the year 2007 till date.
5. Total number of properties regularized, if any, in the said locality of lal dora, since the year 2007 till date.
6. Information on relevant provisions covering regularization of the above properties.
The appellant in one of his RTI applications has mentioned that his property bearing no. 315 situated in Old Lal Dora Aabadi Deh 1908-09, Khasra no. 145/1 at Village Khera Kalan, Delhi-110082, was booked by North DMC vide show cause dt. 01.03.2013.
Thereafter, a notice for demotion of the same was issued and his property was demolished on 26.04.2013. It was after this, he applied for regularization of construction on his property vide application dt. 31.05.2013. On 02.07.2013, the appellant was requested to submit the relevant documents for regularization of his property and on 19.07.2013, the request for regularization was rejected for non- submission of documents. He alleges that his request for regularization was rejected deliberately with the aim of carrying out demolition of his property. He has alleged that only his property was targeted in the whole village.
The Commission directs PIO/EE(B), Narela Zone, North DMC to provide the above information, along with relevant note-sheets, to the appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order, free of cost, under intimation to the Commission, failing which warranted action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 will be initiated. The Commission notes with concern that the appellant filed 96 RTI applications many of which dealt with queries in general, which could have been provided to the appellant, at the very first instance. The PIO/EE(B), Narela Zone replied to the RTI applications as per prescribed procedure under the RTI Act. However, the FAA heard all the first appeals, filed by the appellant, on one single day and passed separate orders in individual cases, when he could have disposed of the matter, once and for all, had he gone into the merits of the case and adjudicated on the queries asked and information given. The FAA/SE, being a quasi judicial body, should have gone into aspects like what kind of information was sought by the appellant, whether the same was & could be provided by the PIO or not, etc. The FAA should have exercised his quasi-judicial power, which he did not exercise. Instead, he passed a clichéd order directing PIO/EE(B-I), Narela Zone to provide information to the appellant within 15 days, in each case.
This is travesty of justice. The FAA has shown flagrant disregard to rules/procedure to be followed in the RTI regime. If the FAA would have gone into the merits of the case, clubbed the RTI applications, seeking same/similar information and passed orders on each of these set of queries, the Commission would not have been burdened with 96 second appeals of this kind, seeking routine information. It may also be mentioned here that all the 96 RTI applications have arisen out of a single cause i.e. demolition of the appellant's property in the Lal Dora area, a point on which he has sought various kinds of information. The FAA, well versed with the knowledge because of him, being in the set up for a long time, chose to completely ignore the nature and amplitude of information and routinely disposed of the entire set of applications, directing the PIO/EE(B) "to send the reply again to the appellant within 15 days positively and the case is closed." The Commission feels that this is a deliberate act to evade from his responsibility and commitment, which he needed to adhere to, by passing on the entire burden on the CPIO. Such deliberate act of not discharging his role as the First Appellate Authority and passing on the buck to the PIO and to the Commission, is an act which cannot be condoned.
The Commission, therefore, is constrained to bring this matter to the notice of Commissioner, North DMC for taking appropriate action against Shri Krishan Mohan, FAA/SE, Narela Zone, for displaying flagrant disregard to the RTI regime and to the role of the FAA. A copy of this order may be marked to Commissioner, North DMC for information and necessary action.
With these observations, the abovementioned 96 appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(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.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar