Central Information Commission
Nagaraj M vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 9 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No:
CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/125590
CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/121720
Nagaraj M ....अपीलकता/Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO, O/o The Defense Estate
Officer, The Defense Estate Office,
Madras Circle, 306 Anna salai,
Teynampet Chennai - 600018
Date of Hearing : 04.02.2026
Date of Decision : 09.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are clubbed together as the
Appellant/ Complainant is common and are on the same RTI application and
hence are being disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.05.2024
CPIO replied on : NA
First appeal filed on : 26.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.08.2024
Page 1 of 5
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. Having not received any response from CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2024. The FAA order is not on the record.
3. On 28.06.2024 RTI application was transferred to the District Collector Office by the respondents, which stated as under:-
"Please find enclosed herewith an RTI application dated 22.05.2024 received from Shri. M Nagaraj, No. 3/221 Bajanai Koil Street, Morai Pulikuththi Village, Morai Post, IAF Avadi, Chennai-600 055seeking information under RTI Act 2005. The information sought by the applicant is closely relates to your office. Hence the same is transferred herewith under section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 for furnishing the requisite information directly to the applicant under intimation to this office. Details of First Appellate Authority may also be provided while reply to the applicant"Page 2 of 5
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Mr. M. Nagraj Respondent: Mr. Gokula Krishnan L., AAO, CPIO, Mr. AC Hariram, O.S., CPIO
5. Proof of having served a copy of second appeal/ complaint on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The Appellant/Complainant inter alia submitted that on dated 22.05.2024 he filed an RTI application seeking various information on which no reply has been given by the respondent. Further, after filling the first appeal, the respondent has transferred his application wrongly to the District Collector in defiance to Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The sought information directly pertains to the respondent public authority and no to the district administration. He further argued that no reply has been received from FAA on his first appeal.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they forwarded the RTI application to the District Collector on dated 28.06.2024 as the information sought, closely relates to that office.
Decision:
8. 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.
Page 3 of 5The 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 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.
With above observations and directions, the instant appeal and complaint are disposed of.
SD/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (संजीव कु मार जंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 09.02.2026 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasistha) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
(1) The CPIO O/o The Defense Estate Officer, The Defense Estate Office, Madras Circle, 306 Anna salai, Teynampet Ghennai - 600018 (2) Shri Nagaraj M Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)