Central Information Commission
Rajat Sharma vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 17 March, 2025
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/UTOJK/A/2024/102891
Shri Rajat Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Tehsildar - Ghagwal, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
UT of Jammu and Kashmir
Date of Hearing : 07.03.2025
Date of Decision : 12.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.10.2023
PIO replied on : 30.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 11.12.2023
First Appellate Order on : 18.12.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2023 seeking information on following points:-
Kindly provide me tatima copy detail with demarcation respective site of all tatima of whole Khasra No. 340 village Tapyal Tehsil Ghagwal District Samba The CPIO, UT of Jammu and Kashmir vide letter dated 30.11.2023 replied as under:- "Demarcation report No:-NTG/458 dated:-30.11.2023 along with Tatima of Khasra number 340 village Tapyal Tehsil Ghagwal prepared by Patwari, attested by Naib Tehsildar Ghagwal is attached."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2023. The FAA vide order dated 18.12.2023 stated as under:- "On hearing both the parties, it has been observed that some additional information is also required by the applicant. Hence, the applicant is requested to submit fresh application with requisite information and PIO Tehsildar Ghagwal is directed to provide requisite information as per application."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 1 of 3
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 01.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO stating as under:
The information requested by the applicant has already been provided multiple times by this office, including copies of Tatima, the Naib Tehsildar's report, the Patwari's report, and the demarcation report of Kharsa No. 340 in village Taypal. A commission was formed for demarcation, and both the vendor (applicant) and the vendee were called to the site. However, due to excessive bush growth, the land could not be demarcated. The commission instructed both parties to clear the bushes within a week.
Upon revisiting the site after a week, the commission found that the land had not been cleared. Instructions were given again. However, even on the third visit, the situation remained unchanged.
Earlier, the commission had already conducted a demarcation on 18-01-2021. As per the Tatima report, there was a shortfall of 3 Karam of land on the East-North corner, while on the South side, the applicant had illegally occupied 6 Marlas exceeding his rightful share.
The applicant has repeatedly prevented the revenue team from conducting demarcation on the South side, as this area is more favorable to him. Raj Kumar, father of Rajat Sharma (applicant), has had the demarcation done multiple times and has obtained reports indicating that he is attempting to claim land beyond his entitled share, as per Tatima.
The disputed land was purchased by Renu Devi, daughter of Amar Nath, resident of Hiranagar, who currently holds possession.
Previously, Raj Karan and Raj Kumar had also filed a second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner. Following this, by the Commissioner's order, Raj Karan was called to this office on 26-09-2024, and a joint Revenue team- comprising the Tehsildar Ghagwal, Naib Tehsildar Ghagwal, Girdawar Circle, and Patwari Halqa Ghagwal-visited the site for demarcation. However, they found that excessive bush growth continued to obstruct the process. The landowner was instructed once again to clear the bushes and inform this office so that proper demarcation could be carried out. It was also clarified that once demarcation is completed, any land falling within the rightful share of the applicant, as per the registry, will be handed over to him. However, to date, the site remains uncleared, as the applicant insists that it is the department's responsibility to remove the bushes before proceeding with demarcation.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Shakil Ahmad - Tehsildar, Ghagwal was present through video conference during hearing.
The Respondent alone was present during hearing and placed reliance on the aforementioned written submission dated 01.03.2025 stating that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with Page 2 of 3 the public authority and defined as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant.
The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 01.03.2025, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter.
Since the response of the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act and the Appellant has chosen not to contest the case, 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 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)