Central Information Commission
Umesh Yadav vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 1 February, 2021
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
द्वितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.: CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/158020
UMESH YADAV .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Kapashera)
(Government of NCT of Delhi), Kapashera,
South-West District, Old Terminal Tax
Building, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037.
...प्रनर्वािीगण/Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02-02-2018
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 15-03-2018
First Appellate Authority order : 06-04-2018
Second Appeal dated : 17-05-2018
Date of Hearing : 01-02-2021
Date of Decision : 01-02-2021
lwpuk vk;qDr : Jh हीरालाल सामररया
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 05 points regarding Demarcation report of the land bearing Khasra No. 33/2/1 & 10/1 situated in the revenue estate of village Paprawat, Tehsil Kapashera, Delhi inter alia including name of all revenue officials who were present with the Field Kanunga at the time of demarcation (on 17-06-2017), date of final demarcation report which was done Page 1 of 3 by the revenue official, copy of entire demarcation proceeding of the land bearing Khasra No. 33/2/1& 10/1 etc. On getting no response from PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2018. The FAA vide order dated 06.04.2018 disposed off the First Appeal and directed the CPIO to provide the reply to the Appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar, Advocate, appear in person. Respondent : Shri R. K. Gupta, Tehsildar/ Kapashera, appear in person.
Appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided by the Respondent is compliance of FAA's order.
The Respondent during hearing supplied a copy of updated report 21.01.2021 to the Appellant alongwith available information. The said report has been perused by the Commission as well. The Respondent submitted that if the Appellant is still not satisfied with the reply, then he can inspect the relevant records by visiting the office of the Respondent.
Decision:
Upon perusing the records, the Commission observes that appropriate reply alongwith available information has been provided by the Respondent as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, considering the averments of the Respondent, the Commission directs the PIO to provide an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time, duly intimated to the Appellant in writing. Copy of documents, if desired by Page 2 of 3 the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of the prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. Commission's directions should be complied within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
With the aforesaid direction, the instant second appeal stands disposed off.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 3 of 3