Central Information Commission
Naveen Kumar vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 17 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2023/133227
Shri Naveen Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Tehsildar - Ramgarh, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
UT of Jammu and Kashmir
Date of Hearing : 13.02.2025
Date of Decision : 13.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.04.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 27.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 15.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 24.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. "Village path in between Gho Rakwalan and Gho Manhasan starts from Khasra No.112 which has been encroached by locals of the village. What is the total width of the said village path as per revenue record and the area of the path encroached falling under Khasra No.325 by the person residing in Khasra No.112; and
2. Vide Tehsildar Ramgarh's order No. TR/08/884-88 dated 15.12.2022 the Naib Tehsildar Nandpur has been ordered to remove all the encroachments of the village lane falling under Khasra No.325 which has not been complied with in letter and spirit. The Naib Tehsildar Nandpur vide his communication dated 10.01.2023 has reported that he has got the encroachments cleared at site which is not a fact. The encroachments have been partially removed and most of the encroachments remain intact. Map of the village lane indicating there in the width as per revenue record vis-à-vis the present available width along with reasons for false, distorted and mis-leading report of the Naib Tehsildar Nandpur be supplied."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.06.2023 held as under:-
"Vide this office letter no. SDM/V/2022-23/234 dated 10-06-2023, the appellant and the PIO Ramgarh were given notice to appear in the office of the undersign on Page 1 of 2 15-06-2023. On the appointed day the PIO Ramgarh and appellant were present. After hearing both the parties, it is observed that the information required in point no. 1 has already been provided but without scale being used for recording the distance. PIO (Tehsildar Ramgarh) is directed to provide the same to the appellant within 07 days from the issuance of this order. The information sought in point no.
2 has already been provided to the appellant."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Kalsotra - Tehsildar, Ramgarh was present through video conference during hearing.
The Respondent stated that information available on record related to the queries raised by the Appellant had been duly provided to him vide replies dated 20.06.2023 and 31.07.2023, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the information provided by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted the letters mentioned by him during hearing and contents of the letters reveal that the Appellant had been informed that demarcation had been done using proper scale and average width of disputed pathway falling under khasra no 325 village Gho Manhasan adjacent to khasra no 112 village Gho Rakwalan when measured on scale comes to two karam.
The Appellant stated that the land he had mentioned had been encroached and he was aggrieved since no action had been taken to remove the encroachment.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. In so far as the Appellant's grievance is concerned, the same does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act for adjudication. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)