Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Abdul Rashid Ganie vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 17 June, 2022

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली,
                             ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/115028

Shri Abdul Rasheed Ganie                                     ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                    ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
   1. O/o the Regional Director Survey and Land
      Records, Srinagar
   2. DC Office Srinagar
   3. Tehsildar Office, Pampore, Pulwama

Date of Hearing                      :    16.06.2022
Date of Decision                     :    17.06.2022
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   28.02.2019
PIO replied on                        :   26.04.2019
First Appeal filed on                 :   15.04.2019
First Appellate Order on              :   15.05.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   27.05.2020

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2019 seeking information on the following points:-

The PIO, Regional Director Survey and Land Records, Srinagar, vide letter dated 26.04.2019 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with theresponse received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2019. The FAA/Regional Director, Survey and Land Record, Srinagar, vide order dated 15.05.2019 stated as under:-

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal with the State Information Commission, J&K. The Deputy Registrar, State Information Commission, J&K, vide notice dated 10.10.2019 sought counter reply/statement from FAA, Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar and PIO, Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar, as under:-

The PIO, Tehsildar, Pampore, vide letter dated 27.05.2019 replied as under:-

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO, O/o the Regional Director, Survey and Land Records, Srinagar vide letter dated 27.05.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.

A written submission was also received from the Tehsildar Pampore vide letter dated 27.05.2022 wherein it was stated that reply to points 1, 2 and 8 of the RTI application was provided vide letter dated 27.05.2019. The reply to the first appeal was also given on 08.06.2019.

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.

The Respondent represented by Shri Shuja Hamid, Naib Tehsildar, Land Records, Srinagar; Shri Nasarullah Khan, Patwari and Shri Zubair Ahmed Bhati, Tehsildar, Pampore participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Hamid stated that the Appellant was dissatisfied with the information provided on points 1, 2, 6 and 8. Out of these, points 1, 2 and 8 pertained to Tehsildar Pampore where the application was already transferred. With regard to point no 6, he stated that the information was large and voluminous consisting of more than 1500 mutation Page 3 of 4 entries for the period from 1990 to 2007 and that it was not possible to seek the consent of each land owner. Shri Bhatt reiterated his written submission dated 27.05.2022 and stated that the documents requested in point no 1 and 2 by the Appellant were destroyed in a fire accident that occurred on 01.08.2010. With regard to point no 8 he stated that no such information is available as the whole pre settlement record has been consigned to the Central Record Room Srinagar after the culmination of the settlement operation in Tehsil Pampore.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. The Appellant was not present during the hearing to contest the submission of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further. Hence no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4