Central Information Commission
Jeevan Lal Sharma vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 17 January, 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/2022/130976
Jeevan Lal Sharma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of India,
PIU-Hamirpur, 218 A Kanwal Complex,
Ward No. 1, Krishan Nagar, Hamirpur,
Himachal Pradesh - 177001, .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/10/2022
Date of Decision : 29/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 25/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 19/04/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 09/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2021 seeking copy of the Land Acquisition Plan of Package IVB + VA passing through khasra No. 289,295,296/1, 302 & 333/2 (Km 142/700+143 /200).1
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 25.03.2022 stating as under:-
"ln this regards, it is intimated that the Land Acquisition Plan of package IVB+VA having large volume and also in bigger size, so you may please visit this office in working hours from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM on Monday to Friday to know details information regarding Land Acquisition Plan for Package IVB+VA passing through Khasra no.289,295,296,302 & 332/2 (km 142/700+143/200)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2022. FAA's order dated 09.05.2022, directed to the CPIO/PD-Hamirpur to given an opportunity for inspection of record to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Braj Kant, Rep. of CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant at the outset argued that the reply provided by the CPIO was dispatched only on 09.04.2022 and further insisted that he has although inspected the record but copy of mere two pages of the map pertaining to his own land is not being provided to him, although he has taken photographs of the same during the inspection but it remains an unofficial copy which cannot be submitted in the Court of Law.
The Rep. of the CPIO admitted to the delay in providing the reply and urged that the same be condoned on account of unintentional delay caused by the support staff in placing the matter before the CPIO for disposal. He further reiterated the contents of the written submissions filed by the CPIO on 06.10.2022 stating as under:
2. In this regard, it is submitted that CPIO has replied to the said RTI application on 25.03.2022. The appellant/complainant has filed first appeal on 19.04.2022 which was replied by 1st Appellant Authority on 09.05.2022.
3. The CPIO as well as 1st Appellant Authority informed the applicant that Land Acquisition Plan of package IVB+VA having large volume and also in bigger size therefore, applicant was requested to visit the CPIO's office i.e. PIU Hamirpur 2 in working hours. The applicant has also visited PIU Hamirpur office and CPIO requested the applicant to see the relevant document, however, applicant insisted to provide a copy of the said Land Acquisition Plan of package IVB+VA.
4. In this regard, it is to intimate that NHAI HQ vide its Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2021 (Copy enclosed) circulated a copy of Order dated 09.07.2021 of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and directed all PIUs/CPIOs and FAAs to keep in view the content of the said order while a dealing with the application under the RTI Act, 2005.
5. In the said Office Memorandum NHAI HQ mentioned that that in a batch of writ petitions bearing No. WP(MD) 14645, 15631, 15632 and 15644 of 2016 filed by some land owners from Nattalam village before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging the publication of 3A(1) notification, 3D(1) and the alignment in respect of Nattalam-A village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District relating to N11-47, Kerala /Tamil Nadu Border to Kanyakumari Section, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions on various grounds and with a direction for NHAI.
The contents of para 13 of the aforesaid judgment (copy enclosed) is reproduced below:
"This Court is really surprised as to how N.H.A.I is providing certain details under the R. T.I Act pertaining to the preparation of a Project report to acquire lands for establishing Highways. Before, any acquisition proceedings are undertaken, it involves a lot of ground work and preparation of Project reports based on the inputs given by the Experts. In the course of preparing the project report, it will always be subjected to changes and modifications. What ultimately comes out at the time when the notification is published under Section 3-A(1) of the Act is the finalized alignment that is approved by the Central Government based on which, acquisition proceedings are initiated. Therefore, the NHAI should not be providing any information to anyone under the RTI Act till the DPR is finalized and approved by the Central Government and a Notification is under the Act if the information is provided, in the manner in which it has happened in the present case obviously, the acquisition proceedings will be stalled and persons will start knocking the doors of this Court even before the Notification is published. It is therefore, made very clear that N.H.A.I. should not be divulging information when the Project is at the preparatory stage."
6. Here, it is submitted that the Land Acquisition process is yet to be completed for the project. Further, Land Acquisition Plan is prepared by collecting & combining the revenue records by the consultant engaged by NHAI. However, actual land is acquired based actual site verification and subsequently, preparation of Tatima and Field book by the revenue department which may have deviation from the Land Acquisition Plan.
37. Moreover, the appellant/complainant has filed a writ petition vide CWP No. 3629 of 2022 before Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in the matter. The matter is sub-judice before Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
8. In view of the above, it may not be appropriate to provide a copy of the said Land Acquisition Plan to the appellant/complainant under RTI Act, 2005 at this juncture."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has facilitated the Appellant with the inspection of the records in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. Further, the reliance placed on the Madras High Court judgment by the CPIO to deny the copy of the Land Acquisition plan is well founded and further justifies the denial of the information as envisaged under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act which provides as under:
"(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Further, in the absence of malafides, the Commission condones the delay caused by the CPIO in replying to the instant RTI Application.
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of action 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