Central Information Commission
Paramjeet Dabas vs Revenue Department on 14 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/REVDP/A/2024/603645
Paramjeet Dabas .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
SDM Office (Narela), MPCC
Building, Naya Bans, Iradat Nagar,
Delhi - 110082 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025
Date of Decision : 13.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.08.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 05.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 09.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Copy of Khasra Girdawarn of the Khasra No. (31//19,20,21,22,23) (42//1,2,3,24), (43//5,23,24), (44//2,3,4,8), (45//4.5,6), (46//1) situated in the revenue record of Village Barwala, Tehsil Narela, District North Delhi of Year 2005.Page 1 of 4
2 Copy of Khasra Girdawari of the Khasra No. (31//19,20,21,22) (42//1.21 (43//5,23,24) ( 44 //2,3,4,8) situated in the revenue record of Village Barwala, Tehsil Narela, District - North Delhi of Year 2006, 2007, 2008, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019.
3 Copy of Field Book (फिल्ड बुक) of Khasra No (31//20, 21), (43/15, 23), ( 44 //2) 4 Copy of Tatima (ततीमा) of Khasra No. (31//19, 22), ( 42 //1,2) ( 43 //24) ( 44 //4,8)
5. When was Tatima (ततीमा) of Khasra No. (31//19, 22), (42//1, 2), (43i / 24) (44/4, 8) prepared."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.12.2023, held as under.
"Whereas notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 28.11.2023. On 28.11.2023 both parties were present. Heard arguments of both the parties, case adjourn for 05.12.2023. On 05.12.2023 Ms. Sakshi representative for PIO/SDM/NL and Sh. Paramjeet Dabas appellant were present. PIO/SDM/NL is directed to provide revised, point wise and correct information/reply after received the RTI application & should ensure correct reply be provided with RTI questions in prescribed format to the appellant within 15 days as per RTI Act-2005. Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
3. In compliance of FAA's order the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 28.12.2023 to the appellant as under:
"1. The requisite records is not available in the present Revenue Records of village Barmala, lying in O/o SDM(Narela). It may be present in the Revenue Records Room of DM Office, North District locate at Alipur, Delhi.
2. As above
3. Photocopy of Field Book enclosed 4 Photocopies of --- Shizra is eclosed.
5. 1954-55"
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 2 of 4The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person along with Shri Kuldeep. Respondent: Not Present.
5. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that complete and correct information on point Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of the RTI application has not been provided to him by the Respondent. The Appellant contended that he had specifically sought copy of tatima on point No. 4 of the RTI application, but the Appellant had wrongly provided copy of 'shizra'. He further informed the Commission that the Respondent has also transferred his RTI application on point Nos. 1 and 2 to the PIO, Record Room but till date no information was provided to him by the transferee PIO.
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that complete and correct information on point Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the RTI application has not been provided to him by the Respondent till date.
7. The Commission further observes that in compliance of FAA order, the PIO had provided copy of 'shizra' to the Appellant against point No. 4 of the RTI application instead of copy of 'tatima'.
8. The Commission observes that there is nothing on record that any reply was given to the Appellant on point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application by the transferee PIO and also the present PIO has not made any efforts to ensure their attendance. Since much time has elapsed, the Respondent is directed to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to collect information, from the concerned PIO, as sought in the RTI application on point Nos. 1 and 2 and provide information to the Appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to show-cause within this period as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed under the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 49. The Respondent is further directed to provide correct information i.e. 'tatima' as sought in the RTI application to the Appellant on point No. 4, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
10. With respect to other points including point No. 5 of the RTI application, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
11. Further, the Respondent has not bothered to intimate the Commission regarding the reason for his/her non-appearance and the said conduct is admonished. The Commission cautions the Respondent that in future, he/she shall refrain from committing such lapses.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, ADM (North), DC Office (North), GTK Road, Alipur, Delhi-110036 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)