Central Information Commission
Ashwani Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 July, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2024/606615
Ashwani Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
DDA, Assistant Director LA Resd
Barapullah Rd, beside SBI Bank,
Aviation Colony, INA Colony,
New Delhi, Delhi 110023 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.07.2025
Date of Decision : 11.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 23.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 26.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 17.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"1 मंगलापुरी गांव जो कि 1977 से पहले दिल्ली एयरपोर्ट िे अंिर बसा हुआ था जजसिो 1977 में Delhi development authority और Airport Page 1 of 10 authority of India द्वारा ममलिर 1977 मै मंगलापुरी गांव िे नाम सही पालन िे पास ररसेर्ेलमें र् किया गया था मंगला पुरी गांव िो भी सेर्लमें र् िरने िे मलए Delhi development authority ने Airport authority of India से तिरीबन ₹19 लाख 89 हजार रुपए Delhi development authority ने Airport authority of India से मंगलापुरी गांव िो ररसेर्ेलमें र् िे मलए थे उस ₹19 लाख 89 हजार रुपए िो Delhi development authority मंगलापुरी गांव िो ररसेर्ेलमें र् िे मलए उस पैसे िो िहां िहां प्रयोग किया गया और इस िायट में उस पैसे िा यूज़ किया गया उसिी पूरी जानिारी िस्तावेज सुममत हमें िी जाए तथा उन िस्तावेजों िी फोर्ो िॉपी हमें भी हमें िी जाए 2 Airport authority of India ने Delhi development authority िो मंगलापुरी गांव िो ररसेर्ेलमें र् िे मलए थे ₹19 लाख 89 हजार रुपए दिए गए थे तो क्या उन पैसों में Delhi development authority द्वारा भूमम लागत लीगई थी या नहीं िस्तावेजों िे अधार पर हमें बताया जाए तथा उन िस्तावेजों िी फोर्ोिॉपी भी हमें िी जाए 3 Delhi development authority ने मंगलापुरी गांव िो 1977 ररसेर्ेलमें र् िरते समय मंगलापुरी गांव वामसयों िे मलए र्ोर्ल कितनी जमीन ररसेर्ेलमें र् िरने िे मलए Delhi development authority िी गई िा पूरा ब्यौरा िस्तावेज समेत हमें बताया जाए तथा उन िस्तावेजों िी फोर्ो िॉपी हमें भी जाए 4 Delhi development authority द्वारा मंगलापुरी गांव जो कि 1977 से पहले दिल्ली एयरपोर्ट िे अंिर बसा हुआ था Delhi development authority िे अधधिाररयों द्वारा मंगलापुरी गांव िो ररसेर्ेलमें र् िरने से पहले िोई सवे किया गया था या नहीं जजससे पता चल सिे िी उस समय मंगलापुरी गांव में किस व्यजक्त िे पास कितनी जमीन थी Delhi development authority द्वारा ताकि मंगलापुरी गांव ररसेर्ेलमें र् िरते समय गांव वामसयों िो उसी आधार पर जमीन िी जाए Delhi development authority द्वारा मंगलापुरी गांव जो कि 1977 से पहले दिल्ली एयरपोर्ट िे अंिर बसा हुआ था अगर उस समय Delhi development authority द्वारा मंगलापुरी गांव िा िोई सवे हुआ था तो उस सवे िी सवे ररपोर्ट िस्तावेज समय हमें बताएं तथा उस सवे िी Page 2 of 10 फोर्ोिॉपी मलए हमें िी जय और अगर development authority द्वारा मंगलापुरी गांव िोई सवे नहीं हुआ तो वह स्वयं नहीं हुआ उसिे बारे में बताया जाए 5 Delhi development authority ने मंगलापुरी गांव िो 1977 ररसेर्ेलमें र् िरते समय मंगलापुरी गांव वामसयों िो Delhi development authority िे द्वारा किस व्यजक्त िो प्लॉर् िे ना चादहए या इस व्यजक्त िो प्लॉर् नहीं िे ना चादहए Delhi development authority िे अधधिाररयों ने किस आधार पर प्रेस किया था िस्तावेज समय इसिी जानिारी हमें उडी जाए तथा वह िस्तावेज हमें उनिी फोर्ो िॉपी िी जाए 6 Delhi development authority अधधिाररयों िे पास मंगलापुरी गांव वामसयों िी कितने प्लॉर् फाइल है उन सभी फाइल नंबर समेत में जानिारी िी जाए 7 Delhi development authority अधधिाररयों िे पास मंगलापुरी गांव वामसयों िी प्लूर्ो िी कितनी फाइल गुम हो चुिी है उसिी जानिारी प्लॉर् नंबर समेत हमें बताई जाए 8 दिल्ली वविास प्राधधिरण ने द्वारिा में भूमम िा अधधग्रहण किया था जजसमें गांव िा नाम Amberhai है , जजसिा AWARD NO-13/91-92, एि िे अनुसार, उन सभी व्यजक्तयों िी सूची, जजनिी भूमम दिल्ली वविास प्राधधिरण अधधग्रहण िी गई थी उनिी सूची हमें िी जाए तथा हमारे द्वारा मानिे य िरें नीचे जी गई थी सभी फाइलों िी फोर्ोिॉपी हमें िी जाए िी फोर्ो िॉपी में जो भी खचाट आएगा मैं जान िे ने िे मलए तैयार है (1) 14/01/1993 Ashok S/O Sube Singh Amberhai F-31(45)/04/93/L&B/Alt 13/91-92 (2) 10/05/1993 Ramrati D/O Sh. Lakhi Ram Amberhai F-31(45)/09/92-94/L&B/Alt 13/91-92 (3) 14/01/1993 Satish S/o Sube Singh Amberhai F-31(45)/3/93/L&B/Alt 13/91-92"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.02.2024 stating as under:
Page 3 of 10"1. Development work was carried out by DDA from the funds allocated to DDA by AAI
2. Amount paid by AAI was only for developing site.
3. There is no such record available in this office.
4. Survey list not available in this office.
5. Attached
6. No such information is available.
7. No such information is available.
8. Third party rejection u/s 8(1)(j)."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.02.2024, held as under.
"Your RTI reply has already given by CPIO."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 03.07.2025 filed by the Respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"1. िृपया श्री अश्वनी िुमार िी द्ववतीय अपील से संबंधधत सुनवाई सूचना सं. CIC/DDATY/A/2024/606615 दिनांि 13.06.2025 िा संिभट लें।
2. इस संबंध में यह अवगत िराना है कि श्री अश्वनी िुमार िी दिनांि 17.11.2023 िी ऑनलाइन RTI आवेिन प्राप्त हुई थी जजसमें आठ बबंिु आधाररत प्रश्न रे जजडेंर् वेलफेयर एसोमसएशन, गांव मंगलपुरी िे पत्र िे आधार पर पूछे गए थे। इन प्रश्नों िा उत्तर दिनांि 23.2.2024 िो दिया गया था (वप्रंर् संलग्न)। प्रथम अपील दिनांि 26.12.2023 इस िायाटलय में उपलब्ध नहीं है , िस ू री अपील िी प्रतत दिनांि 16.2.2024 िो प्राप्त हुई थी, जो कि इस नोर् िे साथ संलग्न है।
3. श्री अश्वनी िुमार िी RTI दिनांि 17.11.2023 पर दर्प्पणणयां तनम्नमलणखत हैं:
1. यह तथ्य है कि गांव मंगलपुरी पालम एयरपोर्ट िे तनिर् जस्थत है । भारत सरिार और एयरपोर्ट अथॉररर्ी ऑफ इंडडया द्वारा तनणटय मलया गया था कि गांव मंगलपुरी िे तनवामसयों िो एयरपोर्ट िे िायट हे तु नए स्थान पर पुनवाटमसत किया जाए। पुनवाटस िा िायट DDA िो सौंपा गया था और पट्र्े िी योजना इस शाखा िो सौंप िी गई। यह ज्ञात नहीं है कि इस शाखा िो कितना धनरामश प्राप्त हुई। यह िायाटलय िेवल तनयोजन ववभाग द्वारा तनधाटररत योजना िे अनुसार प्लॉट्स िो Page 4 of 10 आवंदर्त िरता है । जमा रामश एवं व्यय िा वववरण अमभयंता ववभाग या अन्य शाखाओं द्वारा ही बताया जा सिता है ।
ii. इसिा उत्तर भारतीय ववमानपत्तन प्राधधिरण द्वारा समझौता ज्ञापन िे आधार पर दिया जा सिता है कि भूमम िी िीमत ली गई थी या नहीं।
iii इसिा उत्तर भारतीय ववमानपत्तन प्राधधिरण द्वारा समझौता ज्ञापन िे आधार पर दिया जा सिता है या डीडीए िे भूमम प्रबंधन ववभाग द्वारा दिया जा सिता है। iv. इसिा उत्तर डीडीए िा भूमम प्रबंधन ववभाग िे सिता है । v. इसिा उत्तर डीडीए िे भूमम प्रबंधन ववभाग द्वारा दिया जा सिता है , क्योंकि पुनवाटस िा िायट नई लीज शाखा द्वारा िे खा जा रहा था।
vi. इसिा उत्तर डीडीए िे भूमम प्रबंधन ववभाग द्वारा दिया जा सिता है , क्योंकि पुनवाटस िा िायट नई लीज शाखा द्वारा िे खा जा रहा था।
vii. यह जानिारी आसानी से उपलब्ध नहीं है । यह जानिारी राजस्व िमटचाररयों द्वारा किए गए सवेक्षण िे समय तैयार किए गए पुराने ररिॉडट से नई लीज़ शाखा द्वारा संिमलत िी जाएगी।
viii. यह जानिारी न्यू लीज़ शाखा द्वारा प्रिान िी जाएगी।"
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Chirag Gupta, AD/CPIO along with Shri Sachin, JSA, DDA, New Delhi present in person.
6. Written submission of the Respondent is taken on record. The Appellant during hearing reiterated the contents of his written submission wherein he inter alia pleaded as under:
".....CPIO's Response:
Response Date:23/02/2024 To: Details of Response:
The CPIO provided a partial and vague response, stating: ▪ Point 1: Development works were carried out using funds allocated to DDA, but no specific details or documents were provided. ▪ Point 2: Funds provided by AAI were only for site development, but it was not clarified whether land costs were included.
▪ Points 3, 4, 6, and 7: Claimed that records for land allocation, survey details, plot files, and missing files were unavailable.Page 5 of 10
▪ Point 5: An attachment was provided, but no specific details were given. ▪ Point 8: Information on Amberhai land acquisition was denied under Section 8(1)(j) as third-party information, without consulting the third party under Section 11 or providing proper justification. o The response lacked the requested documents, such as photocopies of records, survey reports, or file details, and was devoid of clarity and specificity.
3. Details of First Appeal: o Appeal Registration Numbered/A/E/23/01017 o Date of Filing:26/12/2023 o Grounds of Appeal: Non-provision of response by the CPIO within the stipulated time limit.
o FAA's Order:
▪ Order Date:26/02/2024 ▪ Remarks: The FAA summarily disposed of the appeal, stating, "Your RTI response has already been provided by the CPIO," without addressing the inadequacy of the CPIO's response or the non-provision of requested documents. The FAA neither passed a reasoned order nor directed the CPIO to provide complete information.
4. Grounds for Second Appeal: o Non-compliance with RTI Act:
The CPIO failed to respond within the mandatory 30-day period, necessitating the first appeal. The response provided on 23/02/2024 was incomplete, vague, and lacked the requested documents.
o Inadequate and Vague Response: For points 1-4, 6, and 7, the CPIO claimed records were unavailable without proving efforts to locate them or explaining their unavailability, violating the RTI Act's transparency obligations. o Improper Use of Section 8(1)(j):Denying point 8 under Section 8(1)(j) is unjustified, as the information pertains to public records of land acquisition by a public authority (DDA). The CPIO neither consulted the third party under Section 11 nor provided reasoned justification for the exemption.
o FAA's Failure to Adjudicate: The FAA's order dated 26/02/2024 is non- reasoned and mechanical, failing to address specific grievances raised in the first appeal or direct the CPIO to provide the requested information, violating principles of natural justice and RTI Act provisions. o Public Interest: The information sought relates to the rehabilitation of Manglapuri Village and land acquisition in Amberhai, which are matters of significant public interest concerning residents' rights and entitlements. DDA's refusal to provide clear and documented information undermines transparency and accountability.
5. Prayer or Relief Sought:
I humbly request the Honorable Commission to:
o Direct the CPIO to provide complete and accurate information for all points raised in the RTI application (Annexure A), including:Page 6 of 10
▪ Detailed breakdown and documents of the ₹19.89 lakh provided by AAI for Manglapuri rehabilitation (Point 1).
▪ Clarification on whether the ₹19.89 lakh included land costs, along with related documents (Point 2).
▪ Complete details and documents of the total land allocated for Manglapuri rehabilitation (Point 3).
▪ Survey report conducted prior to rehabilitation or reasons for its absence, along with photocopies (Point 4).
▪ Criteria and documents used for plot allocation to Manglapuri residents (Point
5).
▪ Details of plot files available with DDA, including file numbers (Point 6). ▪ Details of missing plot files, including plot numbers (Point 7). ▪ List of persons affected under Amberhai land acquisition (Award No. 13/91-
92) and photocopies of related files (Point 8).
o Direct the CPIO to provide all requested documents as certified photocopies, as sought in the RTI application.
o Review the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) for point 8 and ensure compliance with Section 11 for third-party information, if applicable. o Impose a penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act for delay and failure to provide complete information, causing inconvenience and undue hardship to the applicant. o Direct the FAA to pass reasoned orders in future appeals, addressing all grounds raised by the applicant. o Grant compensation to the applicant for expenses and inconvenience caused due to non-compliance by the CPIO and FAA with the RTI Act.
6. Additional Information:
o I am willing to bear the reasonable cost for obtaining photocopies of the requested documents, as mentioned in the RTI application. o I request that my personal information (name, address, contact details) not be published in the Commission's order to protect my privacy, as advised in the hearing notice.
o I will attend the scheduled hearing on 07/07/2025 at 10:55 AM at the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, in person or through an authorized representative. My mobile number and email ID have been uploaded on the Commission's website, as required."
7. While summing up of arguments, the Appellant contended that there is a delay in giving reply by the Respondent and the reply given by the CPIO is incomplete and contradictory in nature as can be seen from the response of point No. 3 of RTI application where the Respondent on one hand is claiming that records of requested information is not available, on the other hand against point No. 8 of RTI application the Replying Respondent claimed Page 7 of 10 exemption from disclosure of information under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. This shows that the CPIO must have gone through the case records and tried to malafidely withheld the information. He added that a similar Appeal bearing File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2022/600782 on identical subject was decided by the predecessor bench where directions were issued by the Commission to provide revised reply, however, the said order has not been complied by the Respondent till date. He prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
8. The Respondent stated that the initial reply has been provided to the Appellant by the then CPIO, Shri Tanuj Rajput. He further pleaded that since the information is not available with their office, therefore, he expressed his inability to facilitate information to the Appellant. On being queried by the Commission, the Respondent pleaded lack of knowledge regarding provisions of Section 5(4)/ Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
9. At the outset, the Commission adversely viewed the conduct of the then CPIO, Shri Tanuj Rajput, DDA, New Delhi who neither gave any reply within the stipulated time during his tenure as designated CPIO to the Appellant nor is there any written explanation to this effect on record. Such casual conduct of the then CPIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the free flow of information and is a grave violation to the provisions of the RTI Act. In the instant case the First Appeal has also not been disposed by the First Appellate Authority till date. It is further noted with concern by this Bench which has come across multiple cases of DDA, where neither any reply has been given to the applicants in the first instance, nor any reasonable cause was explained by the CPIOs of the relevant time. Moreover, the then CPIO was never brought to the hearing by the Respondent Public Authority despite knowing that no reply was given initially within stipulated time. There appears to be no proactive steps to allay the common perception of stonewalling RTI applications by the Respondent Public Authority. It is only at the stage of receipt of hearing notice from CIC that the present CPIOs made efforts to give reply to the applicants at the stage of Second Appeal/Complaint, which defeated the very purpose of seeking the information on account of delay so caused. It is also a fact that these queries are filed by allottees of plot/house sold by the DDA and are high value property transactions. Accordingly, the Commission is of the considered view that in the instant case the provisions of the RTI Act have been clearly Page 8 of 10 violated by the then CPIO, Tanuj Rajput, DDA New Delhi by not giving any reply to the Appellant against his RTI application and it is beyond reasonable doubt that the erring official has evaded his responsibility while holding the charge of CPIO which is not in the spirit of RTI Act. Thus, the mala fide on the part of the then CPIO-cum-Assistant Director, Shri Tanuj Rajput, is established.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Commission finds this case to be a fit case for imposition of penalty on the erring official i.e., Shri Tanuj Rajput, the then CPIO, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi.
11. In view of the above, the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act on Shri Tanuj Rajput, the then CPIO, Delhi Development Authority, for violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This amount will be deducted from his salary. The First Appellate Authority is hereby directed to recover above penalty from the salary of Shri Tanuj Rajput, the then CPIO, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi and remit the same through a Demand Draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Section Officer, CR-II, Central Information Commission, Room No. 106, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067.
12. The First Appellate Authority is further directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Drawing & Disbursement Officer, under intimation to the Commission, for necessary action.
13. Further, disciplinary proceeding is recommended against the then CPIO, Shri Tanuj Rajput. The FAA is given the responsibility to cause/et caused disciplinary proceedings against Shri Tanuj Rajput. A compliance report in this regard be uploaded on the portal of Commission through the link, http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add and a copy of the same be sent to the Commission through speed post.
14. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the reply furnished by the present CPIO is also evasive, misleading and incomplete which is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The present CPIO, Shri Chirag Gupta not only gave vague reply but also did not mention his name while replying to the RTI application which was required as per the DoPT instructions issued vide Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR. This action of the present CPIO is deliberate because he knew that he was furnishing a bad reply and he wanted to evade responsibility and accountability as enshrined in Page 9 of 10 the preamble of the RTI Act. His conduct also calls for action to be initiated under Section 20 of the RTI Act. However, since it is not a case of no response to the Appellant by the present CPIO and also the present CPIO has appeared before the Commission in the hearing, he is given an opportunity to show cause. Accordingly, the present CPIO, Shri Chirag Gupta, Assistant Director- cum-CPIO is show caused as to why penalty of Rs. 10,000/- be not imposed on him for flouting the provisions of the RTI Act. Written explanations of the present CPIO should reach the Commission within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
15. Meanwhile, the Respondent (present CPIO) is directed to revisit the contents of the RTI Application and provide a revised updated reply along with relevant information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. In the event the information is denied on any points of RTI application under exemption clause then it should be supported by proper justification in terms of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act. This direction should be complied by the Respondent within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order, failing which penal action may be initiated against the present CPIO as per the RTI Act.
16. FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA DDA Director LA Resd Barapullah Rd, beside SBI Bank, Aviation Colony, INA Colony, 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 initiate a disciplinary action against the CPIO/PIO (Shri/Smt Tanju Rajput), under the service rules applicable to him, under section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)