Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sunil Kumar vs Revenue Department Ut Of J & K on 4 July, 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/RDUJK/A/2023/637872


Shri Sunil Kumar                                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Revenue Department UT of J & K                         ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                          :   02.07.2024
Date of Decision                         :   02.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          02.05.2023
PIO replied on                    :                - -
First Appeal filed on             :          12.06.2023
First Appellate Order on          :                - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :          03.08.2023

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
A. land vide survey no's 200, 200, 202, etc in the estate of malporapanditan, Teh, zainger Dist. Bla to transferred to the name of M/s Subham shah R/o Bormas using the means illegal insertions con- on page of Jamabandi of year 1970lying in old revenue record Bemina sgr, mutation of its revenue road and attesting unconstitutional mutation under article-8 in year 1996. Every proof of each fraud provided to your office from to time.
1. Kindly provide information what action stand initiated by your office on this fraud exposed with proofs
2. what action stand initiated on this fraud under J & K property act of 1997
3. when the fraud stand exposed with proofs, how is the xx perpetrators allowed to keep the possession and cultivation this property.

B. And other related information."

Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.06.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Page 1 of 4

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Hilal Ahmad-Accounts Officer and Shri Zahir Rahid - Tehsildar, Zaingeer were present during hearing through video conference Respondent present during hearing stated that information held on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. He submitted a reply dated 13.07.2023 after the hearing which reveals that the following information had been furnished by the Respondent:
A. Regarding survey Nos 200,200/1 and 202 of estate Malpora Panditan,It is submitted that Revenue village Malpora Panditan was brought under settlement operations and the ROR(Mislihaqiyat) for the year 2001-02 has been operational since settlement.As per ROR (mislihaqiyat) survey No. 202 in estate Malpora Panditan land measuring 05 kanal 06 marlas existing in khewat 120 and khata 126 of ROR is comprising of old survey Nos 200,200/1 and 202.As per RoR survey NO.202(05 kanal 06 marlas) is recorded as Proprietary land of Mohd Subhan S/o Mohd Shah R/o Bomai (now expired). As per ROR survey NO.202 has become proprietary land of said Mohd Subhan by virtue of mutations 159(sehat e Kash/Section 4) and 326(section 8) of Agrarian reforms Act as mentioned in column 10 of ROR.Both the mutations stand attested prior to settlement. All Revenue records including all mutations prior to settlement were deposited in Central record room Srinagar at the time of completion of settlement by erstwhile Tehsil Sopore Cancellation of mutations (159 and 326) and changes in ROR are beyond competence of this office.

(1) Action in this regard is beyond competence of this office. (2) Action in this regard is beyond competence of this office. (3) As the revenue records available with this office are still in the name of Mohd. Subhan S/O Mohada Shah R/O Bomai, therefore, no eviction process could be initiated by this office.

1. B. As per Revenue records survey Nos.245(15 marlas), 246(03 kanal 06 marlas), 247(14 kanal 18 marlas) and 440 (05 kanal 11 marlas) situated in estate Malpora Panditan are recorded as propritary land of Mashernath etc(migrants). As per spot survey Nos 245 min (10 marlas),246 min (02 kanal 04 marlas), 247 min (09kanal 18 marlas) and 440 min (03 kanal 14 marlas) are under the possession of Manzoor Ahmad, Mohd Shafi and Ali Mohd SS/o Gh Rasool Bhat R/o Bomai by virtue of General power of attorney duly attested by Sub Registrar Jammu and executed by Satpal S/o Mashernath and Vishamber Nath Adopted son of Keshav Nath(Attornees) in favour of Gh Rasool S/o Aslam Bhat R/o Bomai (attorney holder). Although the aforementioned power of attorney stands cancelled by Honorable Court at Jammu but It is pertinent to mention that the instant matter is also sub judice before The Honourable High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (Srinagar) under OWP No.2048/2015. Reply in the instant court case stands already submitted before Honourable High court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at srinagar by this office. However survey No.245 min (05 marlas), 246 min (01 kanal 02 marlas) 247 (04 kanal 19 marlas) and survey No. 440 min(01 kanal 17 marlas) have already been retrieved from encroachers and is kept under supervsion/superdari of lumberdar concerned. (4) As the case is still subjudice before The Honorable High Court of J&K, any action by this office will amount to contempt of The Honorable Court. (5) The possession over the afore mentioned property is on the basis of Honorable Court directions.

Page 2 of 4

(6) As the case is still subjudice before The Honorable High Court of J&K, any action by this office will amount to contempt of The Honorable Court. C. Survey No.206 land measuring 02 kanal and 15 marlas in estate Edipora is recorded as Abad E Deh in Revenue records. As per revenue records khasra NO.206 Min (14 marlas)was sold by Dileep Kumar and Smt. Nirmala (share holders) to Mudasir Rasheed S/o Ab Rasheed, Hamidullah, Khazir Mohammad, Gulzar Ahmad SS/o Mohd Ramzan Dar R/o Wadoora vide sale deed Mutation No. 1366. Later on Vide mutation No.1377 (sale deed) Mudasir Rasheed etc have sold the said piece of land (206 min 14 marlas) to Gh. Qadir Marazi S/o Gh.Rasool Marazi R/o Edipora. On spot said land is under possession of Gh. Qadir Marazi (buyer). For survey No.206 Min (4 marlas) a general Power of attorney duty attested by the competent authority and is executed by Bansi Lal, Lokesh kumar, Roshan Lal, Moti lal sons and Sarla Koul, Rita kumari Daughters of Ram Chand (attornees) in favour of Gh Qadir S/o Gh Rasool Marazi R/o Eidipora. A land alienation case in this regard for survey No.206 Min is under process. As per spot Survey No.206 Min measuring 18 marlas is under possession of Ghulam Qadir S/o Gh. Rasool Marazi R/o Edipora. (7) Mutation No. 1366 sale deed was attested on the basis of sale permission issued by Worthy Divisional Commissioner Kashmir Vide No. Div Com/Relief/MLA/479/234/2540 dated 10-07-2004. Mutation No. 1377 sale deed was attested on the basis of registered sale deed duly attested by Sub Registrar Sopore Dated 12-01-2005.

(8) Both the mutations i.e., 1366 and 1377 are valid till date. (9) Both the mutations i.e., 1366 and 1377 are valid till date. (10) Detailed report is given in para C. (11) As per spot no encroachment is existing over land of the applicant.

Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission notes 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. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case and has not appeared for the hearing. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has already 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 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)