Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vijay Kumar Babbar vs Delhi Development Authority on 27 December, 2018

                              के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                   Central Information Commission
                          बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                    Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                     नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.CIC/DDATY/A/2017/119671

Sh. Vijay Kumar Babbar,                                    ....अपीलकताग/Appellant
New Delhi-110008
                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम

PIO/Assistant Director-(L.A.),
Delhi Development Authority,                           .... प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent

Through:-Mr. R C Meena-Asstt. Director:

Date of Hearing                      :    24.12.2018
Date of Decision                     :    27.12.2018
Information Commissioner             :    Shri BimalJulka

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on              :   16.06.2016
PIO replied on                        :   06.07.2016
First Appeal filed on                 :   23.07.2016
First Appellate Order on              :   -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   24.03.2017


Information sought

and background of the case:

Vide RTI application dated 16.06.2016, the Appellant sought information about owner of terrace in NarainaVihar residential colony and copy of the orders, notifications, laws upon ownership of terrace. PIO/Assistant Director (LA) vide letter dated 06.07.2016 informed that the function of his office/branch is only for allotment of plot & conversation of plot from leasehold to free hold. Appellant was not satisfied with response received from PIOand filed First Appeal which remained unheard. Hence, the aggrieved Appellant approached the Commission.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

[ The Respondent is present for hearing while the Appellant remained absent. At a query from the Commission as to why no hearing of the First Appeal was held, the Respondent could not provide any cogent response. However written submissions containing complete information has been submitted during the hearing, which is taken on record. The respondent has clarified vide the subsequent response, submitted during hearing that:DDA does not allow the ownership of terrace. In the allotment of plot the leasehold right is granted in respect of the entire plot. Conversion from leasehold to freehold is granted in respect of constructed properties. DDA launched the floorwise conversion from leasehold into freehold but conversion is not allowed in respect of terrace. In nut shell no ownership is granted in respect of terrace.

Decision:

In the light of the foregoing facts of the case, the Commission is of the opinion that while adjudicating RTI queries, timely and complete dispensation of information is of utmost importance under the Act.

In this case, while complete information has been furnished now, there is no explanation for the incomplete response provided by the CPIO on 06.07.2016. The CPIO is warned to exercise utmost caution in maintaining timeline and completeness of information, while responding to RTI queries, failing which no leniency shall be shown in future.Since the Appellant has not appeared to buttress his case, no adverse order is passed against the Respondent.

The appeal is disposed of as such.

(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover Dy. Registrar, 011-26180514 /राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर, उप-पंजीयक