Central Information Commission
V Madhavan vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 18 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/637942
V Madhavan ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO
Cantonment Board,
Wellington Bazar,
The Nilgiris-643231
Date of Hearing : 17.03.2026
Date of Decision : 18.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 29.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 02.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 31.05.2024
Complaint dated : 29.08.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2024 seeking the following information:
"Please provide a copy of the Cantonment Board Land Revenue Register of Wellington Cantonment Board for the year ended 31 03 2024.
While claiming the Additional Cost for the copy the CPIO will please activate the online payment module provided in the ONLINE RTI PORTAL".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 29.04.2024 stating as under:
"It is intimated that there is no Register in the name of Land Revenue Register pertaining to the Cantonment Board, Wellington please".
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 02.05.2024. The FAA vide its order on 31.05.2024 stated as under:
"The RTI reply submitted vide Registration No. CBWGT/R/E/24/00005 dated 29.04.2024 is found to be satisfied. Further, the registers pertaining to the Wellington Cantonment Board have been maintained by this office".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with instant complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present Respondent: Ms. Kanshna, Revenue Inspector and Mr. Prashant, Revenue Asst.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The complainant is not present despite service of notice of hearing.
Page 2 of 67. Written submissions dated 17.03.2026 filed by the complainant is taken on record which states that the Commission may decide the matter on the basis of complaint as due to too his poor hearing he is not able to interact effectively. It is also stated the Cantonments Land Administration Rules, 2021 (CLAR 2021), Clause 43 mandates maintenance of a Cantonment Board Land Revenue Register as an annual record of leases reflecting rent demand from building sites, agricultural land and other lands; however, the respondent CPIO, Cantonment Board Wellington (CBWGT) denied the information stating that no such register exists, and the First Appellate Authority concurred with the same, thereby unlawfully denying the information.
8. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they only maintain GLR record and not Land Revenue records as that record comes under the state government. It is submitted that as per Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, only information held or controlled by a public authority can be provided, and there is no obligation to create or compile records not maintained by them.
9. Written submissions dated 156.03.20026 filed by the CEO, Mr. Vinod Vikneswan A., Wellington Cantonment Board is taken on record which states that an RTI application dated 01.04.2024 was filed by the complainant seeking a copy of the "Land Revenue Register" for the year ending 31.03.2024, to which the CPIO replied that no such register exists under the specific title. It is further stated that land records of different classes within the Cantonment are maintained by different authorities as per prescribed procedure, namely A-1 and A-2 Land Registers by the Defence Estates Officer/Army Authorities, B-2 Land Register by State Government authorities, and B-3 Land Register containing lease rent collection and GLR-related entries and no separate register exists under the nomenclature "Land Revenue Register." It is stated that as per Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, only information held or controlled by a public authority can be provided, and there is no obligation to create or compile records not maintained in the normal course; hence, since no such register exists in the requested form, the information sought cannot be provided.
Decision
10.The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties present and perusal of the records and written submissions, notes that the core issue for consideration in the instant matter is whether the information sought by the complainant, i.e., the "Land Revenue Register", exists and has been rightly denied by the respondent.
Page 3 of 6The Commission takes note of Clause 43 of the Cantonments Land Administration Rules, 2021, which mandates that the Cantonment Board shall maintain a register known as the Cantonment Board's Land Revenue Register. In this regard, the Commission observes that there exists a distinction between "non-availability of information" and "non- maintenance of records despite a statutory requirement." While the respondent has taken the plea of non-existence of the specific register, the provisions of Rule 43 cast an obligation upon the Cantonment Board to maintain such a register.
The Commission also notes that the complainant has specifically prayed for initiation of proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act against the respondent. The Commission observes that for action under section 20 of the RTI Act the complainant must prove that the information is malafidely denied or wrongly withhold. The Commission would like to place reliance on the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP © 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 in which it was held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission, observes that there is nothing on record to suggest that the information was malafidely denied, knowingly withheld, or that there was deliberate obstruction in providing the information as according to the respondent no such register is maintained by them. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that the non-availability of the requested information in the instant case appears to be on account of non- maintenance of the said register, and not due to any malafide intent to deny the information.
The Commission also takes note of the fact that the complainant has prayed for providing information in the present proceedings. In this regard, the Commission observes that the instant matter has been filed as a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, and it is a settled position of law that information cannot be directed to be provided in proceedings under Section 18. For this the Commission would like to place reliance on the case Page 4 of 6 of Chief Information Commr.& Anr vs State Of Manipur & Anr, 2011 in which it was held as under: -
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision."
Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the appropriate remedy for seeking information lies under the appellate mechanism provided under Section 19 of the RTI Act and not under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
Nevertheless, the respondent public authority should take note of the statutory mandate under Rule 43 of the Cantonments Land Administration Rules, 2021 to ensure compliance with the said provisions and to maintain records in accordance with the prescribed framework, so as to uphold the accountability in record management.
In view of the above observations and facts placed on record, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the Complaint is disposed of.
-sd-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL(सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 18.03.2026 Authenticated true copy Page 5 of 6 (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. CPIO Cantonment Board, Wellington Bazar, The Nilgiris-643231
2. Mr. V Madhavan Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)