Central Information Commission
Srikant Pandir vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 29 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2022/135044.
Shri Srikant Pandir. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
UT of Jammu and Kashmir.
Date of Hearing : 25.07.2024
Date of Decision : 25.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.03.2022
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : 05.05.2022
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.07.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1) Information ab out action taken in Representation dated !2-A2-2OZL Addressed to the Nodal officer, Migrant Immovable properties ( Addl. Deputy Commissioner) ,Anantnag (kmr) (cony of the .Representation is enclosed for reference)
2 ) Information about encroacher, Ghulam Hassan Lone s/o Habibullah Lone R/o Sirhama about his eviction from illegal possession of land in question measuring 01 Kanal under. Khasra No.1602. And information in case the encroacher 1s evicted from the Land and taken under the control of Nodal officer, Anantnag.
3) Information about as to under which rule and Agrarian Reforms Act", Tehsildar Srigufwara has been brought under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act.19? Etc."
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.05.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Page 1 of 4PIO/Assistant Commissioner, D.C. Office, Anantnag has furnished reply dated 09.05.2022 as under :
"...Refer to your RTI received by this office addressed to undersigned. The information asked for is enclosed for ready reference. .."
1. "..We have not received representation in year 2021 of the date mentioned.
2. Eviction Order dated 23/04/2022 has been issued.
3. Under provisions of Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act and by virtue of Mutation No.1106 dated: 25.03.1982.
4. Actually the amount has been recovered from the encroacher as fine, which was mistakenly, reflected in one of the communication 85 rent (Lagan). The communication was duly rectified and the records set right.
5. Doesn't pertain
6. Mutation No.1106 (Section 4) Agrarian Reforms Apt 1976, has been attested dated 25/03/1982 (copy enclosed) by virtue of which Lakshman Bhat S/O Mahadev Bhat is recorded. as tenant..."
":..1.) The report stands submitted to your office vide this office letter No. TSGW/Misc/22-23/10 dated 06-04-2022, however a copy of same is enclosed herewith.
ii.) The encroacher namely Gh Hassan lone stands already evicted and land measuring 01 Kanal under survey No. 1602 of estate Sirhama and the same has been kept under the custody of Patwari concerned vide this office No TSGW/Misc/2021-22/1035 dated 05-03-2022 (copy enclosed).
iii.) The land measuring 01 Kanal under survey No. 1602 of estate Sirhama actually owned by hagwan Dass has been brought under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 where under one Lakhaman Bhat son of Mahadev Bhat (Tenant) resident of village Srihama has been declared as prospective owner under section 04 of such act by virtue of mutation No.1106 (section 4) dated 25-03-1982.
iv.) District Magistrate Anantnag in case of online migrant complaint under application No 6159531f8eeaa7f84ec809e7 dated 10-03-2021 has returned the case with the direction "the rent notice be calculated, issued and recovered".
v.) This office vide letter No. TSGW/Misc/21-22/880 dated 31-01-2022 has used the words "may be that the expected owner (Lakhman Bhat) would have given authority to someone else was just a presumption.
Page 2 of 4vi.) Mutation No. 1106 (section 4) Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 had been attested dated 25-03- 1982 (copy enclosed)..."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 16.07.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Tehsildar, Srigufwara and same has been taken on record The relevant extract whereof is as under :
This office is in receipt of notice dated 01.07.2024 for hearing of second appeal scheduled to be held on 25.07.2024, In this connection, The appellant was telephonically informed regarding the receipt of information, which he denied. After perusal of records, it came to fore that the requisite information sought stands provided to the appellant vide Deputy Commissioner Anantnag's Letter No. DCA/RTI/39, dated 09.05.2022 (Copy Enclosed). Hence compliance report is submitted.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Mr M.M. Pandir- participated in the hearing through video- conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Sajjad Parwesh, Tehsildar Srigufwara- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The son of Appellant participated in the hearing and stated that the Appellant has passed away and he is the legal heir of his father. He stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the Respondent. He stated that unauthorised persons have encroached upon his land and no action has been taken by the concerned authorities. He stated encroachers are still in possession of the land. He stated that complete information has not been furnished to him till date.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant from their official record. He further stated that from the office of Deputy Commissioner Anantnag the information sought has been duly furnished vide letter dated 09.05.2022.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is Page 3 of 4 comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)