Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Delhi Development Authority on 31 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2023/106124 &
CIC/DDATY/C/2023/119033
Akshay Kumar Malhotra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Asst. Director - LAB
(Rohini), Delhi Development
Authority, C-1, 3rd Floor,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025
Date of Decision : 30.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.10.2022
CPIO replied on : 15.11.2022
First appeal filed on : 15.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.02.2023
2nd Appeal dated : 06.02.2023
Complaint dated : 24.04.2023
The above-mentioned second appeal/complaint are clubbed together as the
Appellant/Complainant is common and subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
Page 1 of 10
Information sought:
1. The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
"This RTI Application is filed to know the information related to an issue lying pending with DDA for more than a decade and resultant impact of which is that, 'Corruption of more than Rs 10000 Crores due to ill policies of DDA/MoHUA for getting the property freehold."
DDA puts the onus on MoHUA and MoHUA puts it back to DDA and in this whole process nearly 2 decades have lost and massive massive corruption is happening due to such inactions by DDA as well as MoHUA, for the policy document in respect of:
1. Conversion of leasehold plots Residential / Commercial / Industrial Plots into Freehold plots without insisting for construction on the said plot.
2. Still DDA keeps on allotting the Residential / Commercial / Industrial Plots on Leasehold basis, as very recently DDA had allotted plots on leasehold basis( i.e. approx 25000 plots) in Rohini Delhi and which itself is in violation of amendment to Nazul Rules on 19.04.2006 as well as in contempt of the Order of H'ble Supreme Court of India of October, 2011/2012.
Intent of Larger Public Interest There is rampant corruption in DDA (Delhi Development Authority), which comes under MoHUA, in the name of getting the property freehold.
After the orders of H'ble Supreme Court in October, 2011/2012, no immovable property can be sold/transferred/disposed off without proper sale deed i.e. only on freehold basis and no transaction is legally allowed on leasehold basis.
Immovable properties which are allotted by DDA on lease and presently there is no basic infrastructure in respect of electricity, sewer, water, public tpt system, Police Security etc etc and one of such place is Rohini, Delhi where thousands of plots are allotted by DDA on leasehold basis but in absence of any such infrastructure nobody can even think of building the house on such plots and irony is that DDA gives 3-4 years to construct the house and thereafter the allotte has to take an extension for deferring of construction.
Page 2 of 10So, point one is that how without any infrastructure DDA can expect an allottee to construct a house there and why an allottee should pay the penalty for the inefficient system of DDA who gives only few years after allotment to construct a house but without any infrastructure nobody can even think of constructing anything there. So corruption in DDA to get an extension letter.
And all such plots allotted are on leasehold, and hence to get the property title to be converted to freehold the allottees/power of attorney holders have to show in DDA books that there is a building on the plot allotted by DDA and this is the point where corruption starts. Firstly the allottee/power of attorney holder has to show in books of DDA that building is constructed on this plot and for which the allottee/power of attorney holder has to make construction and which in common parlance is called "DABBA' and then officials of MCD and DDA indulge in corrupt practices of showing this :DABBA" as permanent construction and giving various approvals leading to freehold of property and u won't believe that on the day next to when DDA / MCD officials show the visit to this place (which they never visit) for granting various approvals, the very next day the same DABBA is taken out and temporarily fixed on another land which needs to be approved for freehold. So, one such DABBA is carried to so many plots to show it as a permanent construction to give approval for freehold building.
So, this DABBA is non-existent from the very next day of visit of officials of DDA/MCD shown in records and very much before the actual Conveyance Deed is given as a proof of freehold so that the property ed be transacted upon in open market.
The average cost to allot tee/power of attorney holder for all such transactions is Rs 3.50-4.50 Lacs for a plot of 32 meters and Rs 5.50 lacs to Rs. 6.50 lacs for a plot of 60 meters and so on and so forth.
Out of this 3.50 lacs and Rs 5.50 lacs the approx. cost of DABBA is considered by agents as Rs 0.75-1.00 lacs and rest Rs 2.50 lacs to 3.50 lacs is the commission/corruption/graft money to be given to various officials of DDA.
Thirdly, to be in such corrupt practices, DDA is still allotting the plots on leasehold basis, even after the orders of H'ble Supreme Court in October, 2011/2012. This just ratifies that number of people in DDA are indulge in Page 3 of 10 corrupt practices because had they not been involved in corrupt practices then they a. shouldn't have allotted the plots on leasehold basis even after orders of H'ble Supreme Court b. have made an effort to check such corrupt practices for plots allotted before order of H'ble Supreme Court All people in DDA knows this but none is acting because palms of all the people in DDA are greased by these agents.
Few Facts:
1. Mr M.K.Gupta, Under Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair, Delhi Div-III, Govt of India, vide letter reference number K-
20016/01/2022-DD.III (CIC/MOHUA/A/2020/136206) Dated 28.07.2022, addressed to me, in response to Order of H'ble Information Commissioner, has mentioned in para number 1 that "DDA vide letter No. F1(Misc)/LAB(Ro)2016/708 dated 26.02.2019 had referred a proposal to this Ministry regarding 'Conversion of leasehold vacant plots to freehold". This Ministry vide letter No. K-20014/01/2019-DD.III Dated 30.01.2020 had requested DDA to re-submit the proposal based on the checklist prescribed for further processing the policy issue. However, the revised proposal from DDA is still awaited"
(Copy of the above mentioned letters dated 28.07.2022, 30.01.2020, is attached to this RTI).
Two more letters are attached, as per details hereunder:
1. Letter ref No. F1(Misc)/LAB(Ro)/2016/3099 Dated 05.09.2019 from Mr S.K.Meena, Director-RL, DDA to Mr Manoj Kumar Gupta, Under Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Allair, Delhi Div-III, Govt of India.
2. Letter ref No. K-20014/01/2019-DD.III Dated 13.08.2019 from Mr Manoj Kumar Gupta, Under Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair, Delhi Div-III, Govt of India to Director-RL, DDA.
Please provide the following information related to above subject and the contents of all the above mentioned letters:
1. Please inform me about the status of submission of revised proposal by DDA to MolIUA, as mentioned in the letter ref No. K-20014/01/2019-
DD.III Dated 30.01.2020 from Mr Manoj Kumar Gupta, Under Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair, Delhi Div-III, Govt of India to VC, DDA.
Page 4 of 102. Please inform me the reasons for delay (as MoHUA vide letter dated 30.01.2020 asked DA to re-submit revised proposal, but another letter dated 28.07.2022 of MoHUA says that proposal is still awaited from DDA, i.e. for 30 months DDA didn't submit the revised proposal to MoHUA.
3. Please inform me and give me the entire sequence of flow of abovementioned letter ref no К-20014/01/2019-DD.III Dated 30.01.2020 from Mr Manoj Kumar Gupta, Under Secretary, MoHUA, within DDA along with the respective dates of such forwarding/flow of the said letter with different persons within Public Authority(DDA), along with the names and designation of all such people to whom this letter is forwarded.
4. Please inform me the action taken by each of the official, alongwith dates of such action, to whom this letter was forwarded.
5. Please inform me the names of those public servants alongwith their designations, who are responsible for resolving/making proposal for this issue.
6. Please inform me the procedures and responsibilities of Public Authority, to act upon such issues and the time frame within which such issues are to be attended into and action to be taken.
7. I am to be provided with copies of the entire set of documents in respect of revised proposal submitted by DDA to MoHUA.
8. Please inform me and provide me with the copies of communication between DDA and MoHUA after re-submission of the recised proposal by DDA to MoHUA.
9. Incase revised proposal is still not re-submitted by DDA to MoHUA then I am to be informed about that where and with whom (name and designation of that public servant in DDA) this proposal is lying right now and the various reason(s) for keeping it pending are also to be informed to me.
10. Please inform me the status of the issue pertaining to fresh allotment of plots on freehold basis by DDA.
Page 5 of 1011. Please provide me with the certified copies of the policy documents, in respect of the issue in hand as mentioned above, if it is already finalized."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant/Appellant on 15.11.2022 stating as under:
"1. The revise proposal for submission to Ministry is under process.
2. The information sought is not cover under RTI Act-2005.
3-5. As stated Point No.1 6-7. As stated Point No.2
8. As stated Point No.1 above.
9. As stated Point No.2 above.
10. The fresh allotment are being made through E-auction.
11. The question asked by you is not clear."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 03.02.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and Complaint.
5. The Commission also noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeal and the Complaint on the Respondent has not been uploaded by the Appellant/Complainant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kaushik, PIO-cum-Assistant Director and Shri Rajesh Kumar, JSA, attended the hearing in person.Page 6 of 10
6. The Appellant/Complainant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
7. The Respondent submitted that upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, a physical search was conducted in the concerned record rooms and sections. However, the said letter on which the Appellant/Complainant is seeking updated status and action taken report is not readily traceable.
8. The Commission interjected and asked the answering PIO that the then PIO vide letter dated 15.11.2022 has provided a contradictory reply stating that 'revise proposal for submission to Ministry is under process'. The Respondent submitted that he does not know who was the then PIO who has given such reply to the Appellant as the then PIO has not mentioned his name in the averred reply.
9. A written submission has been received from Appellant/Complainant vide letter dated 11.07.2025 and the same has been taken on record.
10. A written submission has been received from Shri Deepak Kumar Kaushik, PIO-cum-Assistant Director, vide letter dated 16.07.2025, stating as under:
"1. Facts of the Case Upon receipt of the RTI application dated 12.10.2022, and reply to this effect was made available by CPIO reply dated 12.11.2022 and First Appeal was also disposed according to reply made on 12.10.2022
2. Subsequent Action Taken & Present Status After receipt of the notice from the Hon'ble Commission, further intensive efforts were made to trace the Letter No.: K-20014/01/2019-DD. III dated 30.01.2020 isssued by Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Under Secretary, MoHUA.
(i) A physical search was conducted in the concerned record rooms and sections. However, the said letter is not readily traceable.
3. Assurance to the Hon'ble Commission The DDA remains committed to transparency and the objectives of the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant shall be provided the desired action taken on letter No. K- 20014/01/2019-DD. III dated 30.01.2020 isssued by Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Under Secretary, MoHUA by the competent authority, if and when it is recovered or traced out."
Page 7 of 10Decision:
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the reply provided by the then PIO vide letter dated 15.11.2022 and the reply provided by the present PIO vide order dated 16.07.2025 are contradictory. It is noted that the then PIO has informed the Appellant that 'revise proposal for submission to Ministry is under process'. During the hearing, the present PIO informed the Bench that the averred letter on which the Appellant/Complainant is seeking updated status and action taken report is not readily traceable. The Commission admonishes the Respondent Public Authority for providing such mindless and incongruous replies and cautions them to be careful in future while dealing with matters pertaining to the RTI Act.
12. In view of the aforesaid anomaly, the Commission directs Shri Deepak Kumar Kaushik, PIO-cum-Assistant Director, to make an effort to diligently search their database/records in the office and if processing has been completed then provide an updated status along with action report to the Complainant/Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. In case the averred letter is not traceable, the PIO is directed to submit an appropriate affidavit, on non-judicial stamp paper deposing the factum of efforts made and non-availability of the relevant record along with the reason. The said affidavit be submitted to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
14. A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's, are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.
Same are reiterated below:
Page 8 of 1015. In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
16. The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act
17. In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Respondent Public Authority, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's Page 9 of 10 and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The Complaint and Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Deputy Director - LAB (Rohini), Delhi Development Authority, C-1, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)