Central Information Commission
Anguru Narayana Rao vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 22 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NHAIN/A/2020/662299
Anguru Narayana Rao ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of
India, Project Implementation Unit (GQ),
RTI Cell, NHAI Enclave, KM 2/8, NH-16,
Hanumanthavaka, Visakhapatnam - 530040,
Andhra Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/12/2021
Date of Decision : 22/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/12/2019
CPIO replied on : 02/01/2020
First appeal filed on : 08/01/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 28/01/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/02/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 23.12.2019 seeking the following information:
"Provide land acquisition information about Survey No. 111-16A at golden Paradise-II at Savaravalli Village Bhogapuram-Tehsil-Mandal Vizianagaram Andhra Pradesh for road widening of NH16."
The CPIO informed the appellant on 02.01.2020 that;
"............ it is to inform that an extent of Ac. 0.84 (3399.434 Sqmts) has been notified against the Survey No. 111-16A of Savaravalli Village, Bhogapuram- Tehsit-Mandal. The Competent Authority a Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram has passed the award vide No. 04/2018 for Savaravilli village & the same was approved by Competent Authority of NHAI."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2020. FAA's order dated 28.01.2020 stated as follows:-
"....PIO / PD, PIU - Visakhapatnam vide Lr. No.NHA1/12500-E/PILL- VSP/RTI/2019/3024 Dt.20.01.2020 has informed that, with regard to the Sy. No.111 /16A Savarailli village, the total extent of Sy. No.111/16A is Ac.2.07 Cts as per Revenue Records of Savaravilli village, out of which, an extent of 3399.434 Sqm / Ac.0.84 Cts (covered by plots in the lay out) are falling in the alignment of the project. The acquired portion of land was designated as Sy. No.111 -16A2 by the Mandal Surveyor, Bhogapuram for an extent of 3399.434 1 Ac.0.84 Cts and accordingly Award has been passed by the CALA & RDO, Vizianagaram."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, theappellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds:
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: P Siva Sankar, GM(T) & Project Director-cum-CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that his land is situated in Survey No.111-16A and the CPIO has informed about notifying 111-16A2 which is not concerned with him but the CPIO is claiming that 111-16A2 is a part of 111-116A suppressing the fact that the averred land has been declared as excess.
The CPIO clarified that the information as required by the Appellant regarding 111-116A at Golden Paradise-II was provided to him as per the availability of records and there is no anomaly in the survey numbers as such, both 111-16A and 111-116A2 are the same.
The Appellant did not contest the clarification of the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the submissions of the parties observes that the information provided to the Appellant is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the anomalies or the dissatisfaction of the Appellant relating to the land acquisition notification of the survey number or the allegation that the land declared as excess is also notified in are issues which are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said 3 proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
In view of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted with respect to the information provided by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5