Central Information Commission
Ashiq Hussain vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 30 December, 2024
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/JKHCS/A/2023/136413/UTOJK
Shri Ashiq Hussain ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Asstt. Commissioner, Revenue- Poonch ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
UT of Jammu and Kashmir
Date of Hearing : 27.12.2024
Date of Decision : 27.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.05.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 03.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 29.08.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
Q. No.1:- "Provide list of Kh. No. wise and name of the beneficiaries whose proprietary rights extinguished as per Agrarian Reform Act 1976, Section 4 in Tehsil/Mankote. Provide detailed report. Q. No. 2:-Provide list Kh. No. wise and name of the beneficiaries who were given the proprietary nights as per xx 8 of the Agrarian Reform Act 1976 in the Mankote. Provide detailed report.
Q. No. 3:- What is the ceiling limit for one family to keep cultivation land, also ceiling limit for religious places, ceiling limit for parking and tourism purposes, as per the Agrarian Reform Act, 1976. What was the aim of Section 31-14 of the said Act.
Q.No.4:- What is the Ceiling limit for one family to keep land as per further classes of land as; Hali, Maini, xx whether religious places & single family ceiling limit includes adding all classes of land put together. Provide in detail. ETC."
The Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Poonch transferred the RTI application to the Tehsildar, Mankote vide letter dated 06.05.2023 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 01.11.2023 has been received from the Tehsildar, Mankote providing a detailed and comprehensive reply to the Appellant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Heard through video conference Respondent: Shri Mohd. Maroof - Tehsildar, Mankote was present during hearing through video conference.
The Appellant admitted that information has been received from the Respondent.
The Respondent reiterated that information was available on record has been duly provided to the Appellant to answer her queries.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing the averments of both parties, it is evident that information available on records and as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly sent by the PIO, in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Since appropriate response has already been sent by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, and has been duly acknowledged by the Appellant, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the 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)