Central Information Commission
Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 13 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002199/9759
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002199
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sachin Sapra
F-18, Back Lane, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi - 110027
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
PIO & Superintending Engineer-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 27/04/2010 PIO replied : 04/06/2010 First appeal filed on : 04/06/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 15/07/2010 Second Appeal received on : 04/08/2010 Information Sought:-
1. Whether there are non-compoundable deviations in above properties till date? Provide exact details of non compoundable deviations for eg non-compoundable area, setback violation excess FAR etc.
2. How many floors have been constructed on above 2 plots & which floor is under construction at present in above 2 plots?
3. Whether basement has been constructed under the setbacks in above 2 plots?
4. Provide complete details of unauthorized construction, details of all deviations as recorded in u/c booking file.
5. Whether U/C booking was done at ongoing stage yes or no?
6. Please provide name of all the EE (B), AE(B), and JF (B) who allowed U/C in these plots to continue?
7. What steps were taken by MCD to stop U/C in above 2 plots? Whether MCD was successful in stopping the non-compoundable U/C, yes or no?
8. Provide copy of demolition order 345 A sealing orders, demolition dates, 345A sealing dates and details of portions demolished and scaled in above 2 plots.
9. Please provide copy of regularization plans and copy of undertaking if any given by owners of above 2 plots. Also state whether MCD has regularized the plans as submitted by owners of above 2 plots, if not then please give reason for rejecting regularization and what steps would MCD take in how much time to remove non-compoundable U/C in above 2 plots?
10. Regularization plan submitted by owners of above plots show drawings for residential building or commercial building and what is FAR claimed/shown in the regularization plans submitted?
11. Can MCD regularize commercial building plans for above 2 plots if yes then under which MPD-2021 clause and how much FAR?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):-
1. P, No. J-86 & J-88 have been regularized vide file No. 3913 dl. 01.12.2009 and released on 19.03.2010 and 3663 date 23.03.10 and released on 05.04.2010 Page 1 of 3 respectively. However there is some yellow portion which has not been regularized and is to be demolished.
2. On the said 2 plots. BF, GF + Three Floor have been constructed, which are permissible as per MPD-
201.
3. The basement so constructed is some yellow portion which has not been regularized.
4. As per unauthorized construction booking detail of property no. J-86 & J-88, Rajouri Garden vide file No. B/UC/WZ/09/263 dt 24.11.09, u/c of GF, FF, SF (Part) & file No. B/UC/WZ/10/13 dt 03.02.2010, u/c of Basement & GF respectively.
5. The booking was done when the work was in progress.
6. The present EE(B) is Sh. Jagdish Kumar and AE(B) Sh. P.K. Sharma and JE(B) in the said area is Vinay Kumar.
7. Rajouri Garden is an approved colony and the construction carried out on the said two plots is regularizable barring the yellow portion.
8. No sealing has been initiated as such there are no scaling order. Copies of demolition order of the said two properties are enclosed herewith.
9. Under the copy right act, copies of Bldg. Plan which is an intellectual drawing can not be provided with out the concerned architect. The plan submitted has been regularized
10. Same as S No.9
11. Any property which is as per the provision of MPD-2021 and BBL's can be regularize.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply provided by PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The information in respect to the points should be provided to the appellant within 3 weeks in the following manner:-
(i) The specific reply needs to be given.
(ii) The information has already been provided.
(iii) The answer should be in yes or no.
(iv) The copy of unauthorized construction file to
(v) The information has already been provided
(vi) The specific reply be given.
(vii) The specific reply be given.
(viii) Enclosures be provided. Details of demolition with date be provided.
(ix) The copy of the regularization plan and copies of each and every Attachment of the file. The Ex. En. (B) - I, is required to revisit the reply in the light of various replies given in the earlier questions.
(x) It has to be very specific.
(xi) The answer should be very specific i.e in yes or no. If yes then mention the clause.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete, incorrect and unsatisfactory information provided by PIO after the order of FAA.
Relevant Facts that emerged during the hearing on 15 September 2010:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & Superintending Engineer-I;
"Mr. Sachin Sapra has sent a SMS to the Information Commissioner requesting an adjournment since his new born baby has been admitted in the hospital. In view of this the Commission sought the agreement of the PIO for this adjournment. The respondent agreed to adjourn the matter to 13 October 2010 at 10.00AM. Matter is adjourned to 13 October 2010."Page 2 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 13 October 2010: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;
Respondent: Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & Superintending Engineer-I;
The PIO has provided information after the order of the FAA but the following clarifications need to be provided:
1- Query-1: Whether there are non-compoundable deviations in the mentioned properties till date.
The answer should be given either yes or no.
2- Query-4: The PIO has provided the unauthorized construction file but should attest all pages and mention in the covering letter the number pages provided from the file. 3- Query-8: Copy of the demolition register for the both the properties will be provided. The respondent states that no demolition action has been taken on property no. J-86. This will be in writing to the appellant.
4- Whether there is any time limit within which a demolition action has to take place after a demolition order is passed or after an undertaking to demolish the unauthorized construction is given by an owner.
5- Query-10: The specific reply will be given whether the property is commercial or residential.
The respondent states that the said property is for residential use. The appellant shown the Commission the regularized plan of the building. Even a cursory look at the plans shows that this cannot be a residential building since there are very large halls of sizes 34 feet/ 44 feet shown. The appellant appears to be highlighting the fact that MCD is passing plans which could only be used for commercial purpose in areas meant for residential use.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before 30 October 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 13 October 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ) Page 3 of 3