Central Information Commission
Radhey Shyam vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2024/618285 and CIC/DDATY/A/2024/618293
Radhey Shyam .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO under RTI
Assistant Director-Lease Administration
(Residential), Delhi Development
Authority, Lease Administration Branch,
C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi-110023. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025
Date of Decision : 13.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
as well as the Respondent are common, and subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2024/618285
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.11.2023
PIO replied on : 15.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 18.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.05.2024
Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 17.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"F.16 (284) 75/LAB (R) BM_12 (WEST) Shalimar Bagh Delhi-110088 Please allow inspection of all available records in respect of the above property to ascertain the documents for which copies are required."
2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.12.2023 stating as under:
"This is with reference to your two RTI applications I.D No.940 & 941 dated 17.11.2023, It is informed that property file of the plot is not traceable so the inspection of file cannot be allowed in the matter. As regards reply of question raised in your application and on the basis of record available in court case file etc. it is stated as under:
I.D No.940
1. It is seen that prior to determination of lease deed show cause notice on the name of allottee was issued on 7.2.2002, 4.11.2001 for benami sale and misuse-in-basement etc., No show cause notice could be issues on the name of occupier or purchaser till the sale is not regularized by DDA.
2. Yes there is a policy for restoration of lease deed, but lease deed of the entire plot can be restored instead of any part as lease deed of entire plot was one. However, restoration cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
3. Due to non-traceable of property it is not possible to reply.
4. After cancellation of lease deed, land holding department is supposed to refer the case to Estate Officer for starting the proceedings under P.P. Act. It is for Estate Officer to issue the notice under P.P. Act as deemed appropriate.
5. Eviction order was passed for entire property. The reason for not enforcing the same on other flats was that the misuse was in basement and flat No.1. However, after passing the eviction order all the occupiers in the premises become unauthorized occupants.
6. Any of the order passed by the lease department is on the name of allottee and no notice can be issued on the name of occupier, however if the notice was not served to the allottee the same is pasted on the property.
7. Kindly refer Point No. 18. However, it is stated that till the purchaser of property is not recognized, purchaser is treated as third party. In your Page 2 of 7 case you have purchased the basement and under the floor-wise scheme of conversion, conversion of basement is not allowed so still you are the third party in the case.
8. Amount of conversion charges deposited with joint conversion application is lying with DDA and conversion cannot be allowed in respect of cancelled leases. However, due to Introduction of floor-wise conversion policy, joint conversion application becomes infructuous and applicants can apply for refund. Refund will be allowed to all applicants jointly who have applied for conversion on returning the original challan and submission of their copy of blank cheques in support to confirm account number, name of bank IFS code number etc.
9. After passing the eviction order, all the occupiers are unauthorized occupants, and they will be evicted as per rules. 10 This will be done as per rules.
11. As per record, Office of Regency Vaults Ltd found to be running in the Basement. For further questions, there is no information available in the record.
12 As-per-record, Prashant Publications found to be running in the Basement. For further questions, there is no information available in the record.
13. Yes photos were taken by the surveyor, for other questions kindly, refer Point No. 18.
14. As per record a Final Show Cause Notice to Sh. Banarasi Dass Sethya (Lessee) dated 07.02.2002, for further question Kindly refer point no.18.
15. Main File has been misplaced, however, a soft copy of the same is available in the office and there is no reason of misplacing the file,
16. There is no information available in the record.
17. As per record, the conversion application vide no. 99608, dated 28.03.2007 was found in the scanned file along with application for restoration of Plot under reference. For other questions, kindly refer Point No.8.
18. A soft copy of the Main file is available in the office and the same may be collected by the RTI applicant from the office.
19. As per record, the misuse was calculated in the year 28.1.2009 that sums up to be Rs 1,38,23,362/-
20: No such information was found available in the record."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.12.2023. The FAA's order is Not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 7File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2024/618293 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.11.2023 PIO replied on : 15.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 18.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.05.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 17.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"RTI Application in respect of Property at Plot No.12, BM (Paschimi), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 110088.
Ref.: File No.F 16 (284) 75/LAB(R)
1. Action taken on my letter submitted to your office on 21.09.2016 vide Receipt No.REC/M/16/6462 at 12:16:57PM in respect of the captioned property.
2. Does DDA have any policy for restoration of lease after it has been cancelled/determined? If yes, what is the procedure thereof?
3. Did you/your office receive any complaints on the email id [email protected] any time between 01 Nov 2017 to 31 Jul 2018 regarding unauthorized construction going on in property no.BM-12 (West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 110088, that was repossessed by DDA pursuant to determination of lease. If yes, what was the action taken thereon?"
6. The PIO vide letter dated 15.12.2023 provided the following reply to the Appellant:
"1. There is no information available in the record.
2. Yes there is a policy for restoration of lease deed but lease deed of the entire plot can be restored instead of any part as lease deed of entire plot was one. However, restoration cannot be claimed as a matter of right.Page 4 of 7
3. There is no information available in the record, and the same is being forwarded to PIO/VC Office for providing the required information"
Dissatisfied with response from PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.12.2023. The FAA's order is Not on record.
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Money, Assistant Director/PIO, appeared in person.
8. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 01.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
9. The Respondent reiterated that the lease deed of the property in question stood cancelled by the order dated 28.03.2002 of the Hon'ble LG on account of misuse, and the Appellant has no ownership right in the said property. He also stated that since the matter is pending before a competent court, no further information apart from what was already available in official records could be provided. It was further confirmed that the RTI applications were duly responded to in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant, through two separate RTI applications sought inspection of the property records and information relating to the restoration of lease, complaints received, and action taken in respect of property bearing No. BM- 12 (West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The PIO vide letter dated 15.12.2023 furnished detailed replies to both applications, clarifying that the property file was not traceable and therefore inspection could not be allowed. He, however, Page 5 of 7 provided the information available in the record. Further, he informed that the lease of the entire property had already been cancelled by the Lt. Governor, Delhi, vide order dated 28.03.2002 on account of misuse, and the matter was sub judice.
11. The Commission finds that the Respondent has furnished an adequate and reasoned reply to the RTI applications. The CPIO has also provided factual information to the extent available in the record and clarified the circumstances of the missing file as well as the existence of a digital copy. The Appellant, on the other hand, remained absent during the hearing and has not produced any material to substantiate that the information furnished was false, incomplete, or misleading.
12. It is also pertinent to note that the information sought largely pertains to property disputes and administrative decisions relating to lease cancellation and restoration, which fall within the domain of policy and adjudication by the concerned authority, and not within the purview of the RTI mechanism. The RTI Act does not oblige the CPIO to create or interpret matters beyond existing records.
13. In view of the above facts, the Commission finds no infirmity in the action taken by the Respondent. The reply furnished by the PIO is found to be appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA, Deputy Director, Lease Administration (Residential), Lease Administration Branch, Delhi Development Authority, C Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)