Central Information Commission
Indira Jain vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 18 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/187935
Date of Hearing : 17.07.2017
Date of Decision : 17.07.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Indira Jain
Respondent : PIO/Sub Registrar-VI A, GNCTD
FAA - ADM-NW
Through:
Shri Bhupendra, UDC
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.08.2016
PIO replied on : 21.10.2016
First Appeal filed on : 21.10.2016
First Appellate Order on : 18.11.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 28.11.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 22.08.2016, the appellant sought information about memorandum of the family settlement dated 08.06.2001 duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Pitampura, vide Registration Number 8258 Volume No.1662, Addl. Book-I at pages 162-178 dated 13.06.2001. He also sought to know as to whether the said family settlement was valid or not. CPIO vide letter dated 21.10.2016 informed the appellant as below:
"As per record available in this office, Family settlement bearing registration No.8258 Volume No.1662 Addl. Book-I at pages 162-178 dated 13.06.2001, is registered. Remaining part regarding lease conditions mentioned in the perpetual lease deed does not pertain to this office."
Not satisfied with the response, the appellant filed an appeal. The FAA vide order dated 18.11.2016 upheld the decision of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard at length. The appellant is represented by her husband. To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to refer to facts which led to lodging of the present RTI application. As per appellant, commercial property bearing Shop No. 2, Plot No. 24, Community Centre, Wazirpur, Delhi was allotted to one Shri Ram Narayan & Smt. Shanti Devi in 1974 by DDA against a perpetual lease. The appellant claims to be occupying the said shop since 01.10.1977 as tenant. He states to have received one notice for eviction form one Shri Ram Pratap Sharma, who happens to derive interest in the said shop through a 'family settlement deed' dated 08.06.2011. In other words, the interest in shop under reference was transferred to said Shri Ram Pratap Sharma by the original allottee, Shri Ram Narayan & Smt. Shanti Devi.
Through the present RTI application, the appellant sought to ascertain validity of the said 'memorandum of family settlement' registered with Sub- Registrar, Pitampura. A copy of the said family settlement deed is already brought on record by the appellant. The grievance of the appellant is that since the shop in question was allotted on lease hold basis, the same could not have been assigned to some other person through the family settlement. In this context, he wants the Sub Registrar, Pitampura to clarify the validity of the family settlement. It is his contention that the said document ought not have been registered without consent of DDA and the tenant.
Per contra, the respondents state that the query of the appellant was beyond the purview of RTI Act.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission is left with no doubt that the RTI application is not maintainable in the present form. As per the Registration Act, the sub-registrar cannot call in question the validity of any document sough to be registered. 'Registration' is the process of entering a particular document in the public register. Registration of document alone does not testify the validity or invalidity of document as regards the rights it purports to transfer, confer or extinguish between parties. Registration is mere certification of the existence of the document which is registered.
Any document can be presented for registration before a Registrar. For instance, if a marriage invitation card is presented for registration; the registrar is duty bound to register the same and retain a copy of the same in register, which is a public record. However, if someone asks the registrar if the marriage was actually performed or not; or if the marriage performed is valid as per law, the registrar has no means to answer such queries which require involvement of cognitive faculties and interpretation of law. All that a registrar can do being custodian of record is to vouch for the existence of the original document. He is not required to give his comments on the contents of registered documents.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the RTI application has been dealt with adequately. The decision of PIO as well as FAA is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
(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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
INDIRA JAIN Public Information Officer under W/o. Shri V. C. Jain, House RTI, No. : B-2/34, Safdarjung Office of the
Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Sub-Registrar-VI-A, (Government Delhi,New Delhi of NCT of Delhi), 5th Floor, Ambedkar Bhawan, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
First Appellate Authority under RTI Shri Vivek Agarwal-ADM-NW & FAA, O/o. the Additional District Magistrate-NW (Government of NCT of Delhi), North - West District, Kanjhawala, Delhi-
110081.