Central Information Commission
Dr.Indira Manocha vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003412/17145
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003412
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. (Ms.) Indira Manocha
B-119, 1st, Floor,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra
PIO & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of SE Karol Bagh Zone Nigam Bhawan, D. B. Gupta Road, Anand Parbat, New Delhi --05.
RTI application filed on : 20/06/2011 PIO replied : 20/07/2011 First appeal filed on : 16/08/2011 First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned Second Appeal received on : 28/11/2011 Information Sought:
I have already brought to the notice of the relevant MCD authorities; vide letter dated 20thi June 2011, that illegal and unlawful construction activity, which is total violation of the relevant laws and without any sanction from relevant authorities, has been started on Plot no. 313 A-B, GaIi No. 10/11, Joshi Road, of which I am the Co-owner of the half portion (50%) namely 313-A Gali No. 10/11, Joshi Road. The other party, which is the co-owner of other 50% portion, 313-B, GaIi No. 10/11, Joshi Road, namely Sh. Mohinder Singh Sb Sh. Kartar Lal (and Smt. Krishna Devi, etc) have started construction without informing me and without taking my consent of the common building plan as required under the rules/law. This illegal activity is a gross violation of my legal rights as co-owner as relevant setbacks and open areas as per the FAR rules for the entire plot i.e. Plot no. 313 A-B, Gali No. 10/11, Joshi Road are to be kept in the manner agreeable to me as a co-owner and with my consent as otherwise it will affect my ownership when I construct the building in my portion of the common plot i.e., 313-A Gali No. 10/11, Joshi Road.
Following information may kindly be provided:
1. Date of submission of relevant application by the other Co-owner for sanction of building plan for starting construction. Copy of the same may be provided.
2. Date of approval by MCD of the aforesaid sanction of building plan based on which construction was allowed. Copy of the same may be provided with MCD sanction letter and copy of building plan sanctioned for construction.
3. If the sanction was not given by MCD, Names of MCD officers who are responsible for checking illegal construction in the said area may be informed and whether any report was submitted. If so copy of the such report/record should be provided to me Page 1 of 2
4. Whether it was checked by MCD officials, that my consent as co-owner has been obtained, before sanctioning the building plan for common plot mentioned above. Names of such officers Who have defaulted on this issue may be provided.
5. Whether any action has been taken by MCD as requested by me for stopping construction and removing unauthorized structures constructed by other party. If so copy of notice to other party may be provided.
Reply of the CPIO:
1. As per record, no building plan application has been received for sanction in r/o RNo.3i3 A-B, Gail No.10-li, Joshi Road since i.i.201.1.
2. As per record, no building plan has been sanctioned in r/o P.No.3 13 A-B, Gali No.10-li, Joshi Road since 2005 to till date.
3. As per demolition register, demolition action was taken on the property on 29.6.11 and all partition walls has been demolished completely at ongoing stage.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Dr. (Ms.) Indira Manocha;
Respondent: Mr. R. K. Saxena, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. Suresh Chandra, PIO & SE;
The PIO has provided certain information but is now directed to provide the following information to the appellant:
1- Query-1: The validity of the sanction of building plans is five years from the sanctioning it according to the Respondent.
2- Query-3: The PIO states that officers responsible for taking action on the illegal constructions were Mr. Varun, JE and Mr. Pushpendra, AE;
3- Query-5: The PIO states that the demolition action has been taken and the record of the demolition action has been provided to the Appellant before the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records has been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 30 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SH) Page 2 of 2