Central Information Commission
Jaspreet Singh vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation West ... on 5 November, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SDMCW/C/2018/112208
Shri Jaspreet Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Dy. Assessor & Collector-West, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
SDMC, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 05.11.2019
Date of Decision : 05.11.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.09.2017
PIO replied on : Nil
First Appeal filed on : 25.10.2017
First Appellate Order on : Nil
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 19.02.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI application dated 22.09.2017 seeking information on 4 points regarding property/ Plot no. C-80, Fateh Nagar, ND:
1. Kindly cancel the mutation and inform the Appellant in written one month only. I shall file the case in the Delhi Court.
2. Provide the complete file noting, orders, circulars, judgment or any documents regarding this plot.
3. Provide attested copies of this file with correct Sr. No.
4. I would like to inspect the file personally.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed First Appeal dated 25.10.2017.Order of the FAA dated 24.04.2018 indicates that Appellant had earlier filed First Appeal on 21.03.2018 against the information provided by the PIO on 21.01.2018. Vide order dated 21.01.2018, the PIO was directed to write to the present property owners/occupants whether they have any objections if the documents pertaining to the property were supplied to the Appellant.Page 1 of 2
Thereafter, objections were communicated by the property owners/occupants in writing against the supplying of the documents submitted by them. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Submission dated 22.10.2019 has been received from Dy. Assessor & Collector, A&C Dept/West Zone, SDMC, New Delhi which enumerates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal.
Both parties are present and heard. The Appellant states that he is co-sharer of Plot No. C-80, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi and he has ownership documents. The Appellant further states that building on the said plot was illegally constructed without any sanction plan and the property has been partitioned. They have got the property illegally mutated in their name. He further states that it is a property dispute and an FIR has been filed in the Hari Nagar Police Station.
The Respondent states that Appellant is seeking documents in respect of property of third party because as per record the property has been mutated in the name of Smt. Suman Mehta and Smt. Urmila Devi. As per the directions of FAA, the owners of the property were asked to give their 'No Objection' for providing information but they did not agree to this and the documents of the property could not be supplied to the Appellant. The Respondent further submits that as per record, the mutation of property No. C-80, Fateh Nagar part 2/3 Westend side portion out of land measuring 220 sq. yds., with roof rights, was done in favour of Shri Suman Mehta and Smt. Urmila Devi. The respondent further made it clear that mutation in the name of Smt. Suman Mehta & Smt. Urmila Devi is for the limited purpose of payment of property tax only and in no case does it confer/devolve any legal right, title or ownership.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and perusal of records, the Commission holds that information sought has been furnished to the appellant. No further adjudication is warranted in the matter. The appellant is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievances at the appropriate forum.
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 2 of 2