Central Information Commission
Mr.Anupam Dhar vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 November, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/002947
Date of Hearing : November 1, 2012
Date of Decision : November 1, 2012
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Anupam Dhar
Rehabilitation Ministry
Employees Cooperative
House Building Society Limited
Near A28, ABlock, Shivalik
New Delhi 110 017
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondents
Department of Revenue
O/o S.D.M. (Hauz Khas)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Tehsil Building
Mehrauli
New Delhi 110 030
Represented by : Shri Tara Chand, Naib Tehsildar
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/002947
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.7.5.12 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD. He stated that the name of the owner against Khasra No.27 Patti Hamid Sarai village Hauz Rani has been shown as Pyare S/o Khem Chand Jat R/o Lado Sarai in the Gazette of India at the time of acquisition of the land under this Khasra in the year 1949. However, at the time of payment of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer in 196162, this Khasra has been shown in the name of Subh Ram S/o Pyare. In this context, he sought the following information.
i) How the compensation was paid to Subh Ram as owner
ii) If and when a mutation was made in the name Subh Ram
iii) A copy of the said mutation order to be provided.
The PIO replied on 16.6.12 enclosing the available information(copy of dome document) . The Applicant filed an appeal dt.20.6.12 with the Appellate Authority stating that if the land was acquired from Pyare, the compensation could not have been paid to Subh Ram unless there was mutation in the name of Subh Ram and if a mutation was made in the name of Subh Ram, there should be an order to that effect. He then sought the following information:
i) Whether a mutation was made in the name of Subh Ram or not
ii) If not, to say so specifically
iii) If yes, to provide a copy of the relevant order The Appellate Authority after hearing both parties on 26.7.12 disposed of the appeal vide his order dt.3.8.12 directing the PIO to provide the information once again after reviewing the information given earlier. On not receiving any further response from the PIO the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.3.9.12 before CIC.
Decision
2. The Commission on perusal of the documents on record and after hearing both sides directs the PIO to check the records once again and if any information related to any mutation is available including the mutation order, to provide the same to the Appellant. In the event, information remains untraceable, the PIO to inform the Appellant about its nonavailability in the records while indicating what records have been searched by him. The information should reach the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order.
3. Since according to the Respondent the compensation was paid by the office of the LAC, the Commission further directs the PIO, O/o SDM (HK) to transfer the RTI application along with a copy of this order to PIO, LAC with the direction to provide to the Appellant any mutation order that might have been submitted by Subh Ram at the time of payment of compensation to him. If available, the same to be supplied to the Appellant within 2 weeks of transfer of the RTI application. If not available, the Appellant to be informed about its non availability.
4. The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G. Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Anupam Dhar Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited Near A28, ABlock, Shivalik New Delhi 110 017
2. The Public Information Officer Department of Revenue O/o S.D.M. (Hauz Khas) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Tehsil Building Mehrauli New Delhi 110 030
3. Officer in charge, NIC