Central Information Commission
Jaywant Ashok Jamdhade vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 15 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NHAIN/A/2022/154621
Jaywant Ashok Jamdhade ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
UNIT, NASHIK, 1ST FLOOR, KENSTAR
APARTMENT, B-WING, S.NO.318/10,
PLOT NO.1, PATHARDI PHATA,
NASHIK-422010, MH. ..... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/09/2023
Date of Decision : 14/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complain:
RTI application filed on : 02/08/2022
CPIO replied on : 18/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 03/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 27/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/11/2022
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"Information about compliance of provision section 3(A), 3(B), 3(C), 3(D) a 3(E) of National Highway Act 1956 in respect of work of foot flyover bridge carried out on National Highway No. 160 opposite to our Agricultural Land Gut. No. 134 & 136 situated at Savalvihir (kh), Tal-Rahata. Dist. Ahmednagar resulted into complete blockage access / way to utilize out remaining land."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.08.2022 stating as under:
"Land of Gat No. 134 & 136 of village Savalivihir (Kh), Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar is notified vide 3(A) Notification No. 3812 (E) Dtd. 05.12.2017 and subsequent 3(D) Notification No. i 3184 (E) Dtd. 29.06.2018 under NH Act, 1956. Land Compensation award under section 3(G) of NH Act, 1956 of same Gat No. is declared by CALA Nashik vide letter No. 482/2019, Dtd. 15.07.2019. Accordingly, land from Gat No. 134 & 136 is acquired for Four laning of Sinnar Shirdi Highway as per NH Act, 1956.
Foot Over Bridge (FOB) is an integral & essential part and facility of the project. FOB is essential from the safety point of view of pedestrians. As FOB is constructed within NHAI ROW, the question of blockage of access doesn't arise. Moreover, no access is taken by landowners of Gat No. 134 & 136 from NH as per prescribed procedure under relevant NH rules."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First appeal on 03.09.2022. FAA's order, dated 27.09.2022, held as under:
"a) RTI Appeal hearing schedule on 26.09.2022 at 11.30 AM. You have been called on your mobile number many times from 10.30 AM to 1.00 PM, but you are not available to take the call. Accordingly, the hearing will be conducted in your absence.
b. As per National Highway Act 1956, Sub Divisional Officer & Magistrate, Shirdi Officer of State Govt. of Maharashtra (designated as Competent Authority for Land Acquisition) CALA is the concerned office who is carrying out all the activities pertaining to Land Acquisition including publication / issuance of Gazette Notification under 3(A), 3(B), 3(e), 3(D), 3(E) etc. involving identification of land losers, hearing of objection, giving decision and declaration / disbursement of Award etc. NHAI is only the funding Agency and deposit necessary funds with CALA. NHAI monitors 3(A) & 3(D) 2 notifications (published in newspapers / Gazette) for project review purposes. Accordingly, PD has shared the details of 3A & 3D notifications with the applicant. However, in appeal applicant has also desired details of 3(B), 3(C) & 3(E) etc. However, Applicant is requested to file RTI before CALA as it is not a subordinate office under NHAI."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
(i) There is no any justification supplied by the First Appellate Authority as to how and why the Project Director has acting as funding agency without ascertaining the papers of survey as contemplated under section 3 B and 3C of the National Highway Act.
(ii) Due to non supply of copy of survey carried carried out under section 3(B) of NH Act, 1956, myself and similarly circumstanced person cannot raise the objection as contemplated under section 3(C) of NH Act, 1956.
(iii) No provision and/or information supplied by the Public lnformation Officer that Foot over Bridge (FOB) is integral and essential part of road widening from safety point of view.
(iv) Nothing any sort of proper justification given for loss of way/access to remaining land on account of activity of creation of FOB.
Xxx xxx xxx
(iv) Non compliance of the provisions as contemplated under section 3(B) of N.H. Act, 1955, myself and similarly circumstanced person have no occasion to tender the objection and hearing as contemplated under section 3 (C ) of N.H. Act, and, therefore, the decision of National Highway Auhority suffers from Audi Alterm, well known legal maxim, same replica committed by the Public lnformation Officer in not providing the detail of document pertains to carry out the survey etc. lt means that the decision of creation of FOB is clearly suffers from non application of mind which is resulted into loss of access/way for utilization of remaining land to the present applicant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: D.S. Salunke, PD/PIU & CPIO present through video-conference.3
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has sought information on compliance of various provisions of NHAI Act in respect of construction of foot flyover bridge carried out on National Highway No. 160 opposite to Agricultural Land Gut. No. 134 & 136 situated at Savalvihir (kh), Tal-Rahata. Dist. Ahmednagar which as per Appellant's version resulted in complete blockage of access / way to utilize out remaining land. In response to impugned RTI Application, relevant information has already been provided to the Appellant. The CPIO further apprised the bench that the land does not belongs to the Appellant and that the land owners have not even applied for permission to get access for 'Foot Over Bridge '.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core issue raised by the Appellant was unsatisfactory response from the CPIO. In response to which, the CPIO explained in a categorical manner that relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant (as quoted in the preceding paragraphs).
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO as it was found to be as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Moreover, the Appellant did not avail of the opportunity to plead his case or contest CPIO's submissions despite receipt of hearing notice. Thus, no scope for further relief lies in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4