Central Information Commission
Raj Singh vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 29 October, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/134579
CIC/NDMCK/A/2018/134581
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/164457
Shri Raj Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/134579 ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
PIO/Tehsildar, SDM (Patel Nagar)
Old Middle School Building,
Rampura, Delhi
Through: Sh. Rajendra Minz, the.(RG) Link
Officer, APIO (P.N.)
PIO/Div. Commissioner, 5,
Sham Nath Marg, Delhi
CIC/NDMCK/A/2018/134581
PIO/Dy. Assesor& Collector
KB Zone, Assessment & Collection
Dept. Karol Bagh, New Delhi
Through: PIO/Sh. R.S. Kataria, Dy. A&C/KBZ
Sh. Manoj Sharma, AZI/JSA (Deemed PIO)
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/164457
PIO/Tehsildar, SDM (Patel Nagar)
Old Middle School Building,
Rampura, Delhi
Through: Sh. Rajendra Minz, the.(RG) Link
Officer, APIO (P.N.)
PIO/Dy. Director, DUSIB, IP
Estate, New Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director (Architect-II),
DUSIB, IP Estate, New Delhi
Through: Sh. R.C. Meena, APIO/ Tehsildar
Sh. Kamal Sharma, Asstt. Architect
Page 1 of 7
Date of Hearing : 11.10.2019
Date of Decision : 29.10.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
134579 15.02.2018 14.03.2018 20.03.2018 15.05.2018
134581 28.02.2018 09.04.2018 16.04.2018 03.05.2018
164457 15.02.2018 26.03.2018 27.04.2018 16.08.2018
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/134579
Appellant filed RTI application dated 15.02.2018 seeking information on 9
points, relating to Shadipur Khampur Kha village.
1. Provide certified copy of Sizra of Shadipur Khampur Kha village.
2. Provide copy of First and Last Jamabandi Registry Shadipur Khampur Kha
village. Provide copy of field book which is applicable at present.
4. When was Shadipur Khampur Kha Village urbanized? Provide copy of relevant
order.
7. What is the total area of land of Shadipur Khampur Kha village? Provide details
of acquired land. Etc
PIO/Section Officer (RTI-HQ), vide letter dated 23.02.2018 transferred the RTI
application to SDM (Patel Nagar).
PIO/SDM (Patel Nagar) vide letter dated 14.03.2018 informed the Appellant
that the records of the entire village cannot be provided under RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal
dated 20.03.2018. FAA vide order dated 15.05.2018 directed the PIO/SDM
(Patel Nagar) to provide information on point 1 within 15 days and for the
remaining points he stated that the information could not be provided to third
party.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of the FAA order, Appellant
approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Submission dated 09.09.2019 has been received from the PIO/SDM (Patel Nagar) whereby Respondent offers the opportunity to conduct inspection of records to the Appellant.
Appellant, while explaining his locus standi, states that the Shadipur land belongs to him and his ancestors since the year 1860 therefore any information pertaining to it cannot be construed third party information. Appellant has sought copy of notifications/awards issued by the Respondent public authority on the land thereof but has instead been provided with the copy of Sizra (Plan Page 2 of 7 of land) which indicates only the Khasra Nos. Appellant avers that Ranjit Nagar Colony land belonged to his ancestors, which now is known as Ranjit Nagar Colony population Shadipur. Since over the years Appellant's land was acquired and awards/notifications were issued on it therefore, he now desires to get a copy of the relevant documents.
Respondent states that the information sought by the Respondent is voluminous and bulky and would divert the resources of the public authority. Therefore, Appellant is at liberty to instead inspect the records and thereafter get copies of the desired records.
Decision:
After hearing the contentions of both the parties the locus standi of the Appellant has duly been established. Appellant claims that his family had acquired the Shadipur land since the year 1860 therefore he is an interested party and any information sought by him can not be construed as third party information.
Commission, however, notes that the information sought is voluminous, the collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert there sources of the Respondent public authority. Therefore, it is recommended that the Appellant limit and prioritize the requirement of information, so that the same could be provided with ease. Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs:
(i). The PIO/Dr. Atish Kumar, SDM, Patel Nagar to provide inspection of complete records to the Appellant by 29th November, 2019. Upon identification of relevant documents by the Appellant the certified copies of documents upto 50 pages shall to be provided to him, free of cost.
Compliance report shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission by 13.12.2019. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action by the Commission.
(ii). In the event of non-availability of the relevant records, PIO/Dr. Atish Kumar, SDM, Patel Nagar shall file a duly sworn affidavit on a non- judicial stamp paper before the Commission explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability of records or missing records, the action taken to restore them and the details of the actual custodian of records, if known. A copy of the affidavit thereof shall also be marked to the Appellant.
(iii). Before the inspection of the relevant records, the Appellant is under obligation to satisfy the Respondent his locus standi/ownership pertaining to the particular khasra no. in respect of which information is being obtained. Appellant is directed to carry a valid ID proof on the date of inspection of the records.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
63CIC/NDMCK/A/2018/134581 Page 3 of 7 Appellant filed RTI application dated 28.02.2018 seeking information on 7 points.
1. Provide complete assessment records from 1958 to 2018 for property nos. 3248- 3256, 3262, 3265, 3269, 3273, 3274 and 3246 Ranjit Nagar.
2. By whom is property tax being paid for the above properties and since when? Provide complete details.
3. How much of the above property is being used for residential purpose and how much is used commercial purpose? Provide details. Etc PIO/Dy. Assessor & Collector, vide letter dated 09.04.2018 denied the information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed first Appeal dated 16.04.2018. FAA vide order dated 03.05.2018 directed the PIO to furnish the point wise information to the Appellant within 10 days.
In compliance of the FAA order, PIO Dy. Assessor & Collector vide letter dated 08.05.2018 furnished the point wise reply to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Submission dated 27.08.2019 has been received from PIO/Dy. A&C/KBZ. Respondent reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal.
Appellant claims that the reply sent in response to the RTI application and in compliance with the FAO is inadequate and erroneous. Appellant clarifies that "third party" clause does not apply since the he has neither sought any ownership documents or other third party information vide present RTI application. Moreover, the land on which the properties in question are structured belongs to the Appellant and his ancestors. Certain properties were sold while some still belong to the Appellant. Appellant is aggrieved over the illegal encroachment by the above mentioned property owners, beyond the area allotted to them and the growing trend of commercial activities on their residential land. Therefore, Appellant only desires to know the area over which property tax is being paid by those property owners. Lastly, Appellant states that the mutation order is a public record since it distinctly reads, "this is to make it clear that the mutation in the name of (_xxx_) is for the limited purpose of payment of property tax only and is no case will it confer any legal right, title, or ownership whatsoever, under Section 128/132 of DMC Act, 1957."
Decision:Page 4 of 7
Commission notes that the reasoning relied upon by the Respondent/PIO vide reply dated 09.04.2018 in denying information to the Appellant is baseless and incorrect. The argument of the Respondent that information on why, what and when is not covered under RTI Act is not maintainable in the present context. The Appellant is not seeking opinions or advice but has only raised queries pertaining to the assessment of records and other details pertaining to various properties.
Reverting to the issue at hand, the locus standi of the Appellant has duly been established. Appellant claims that his family had acquired the Shadipur land since the year 1860, which is now known as Ranjit Nagar Colony population Shadipur. Therefore he is an interested party and any information sought by him does not constitute third party information.
Under the circumstances, Commission finds it appropriate to direct:
(i). The PIO/Sh. R.S. Kataria, Dy. A&C/KBZ to provide inspection of complete records to the Appellant on 12th November, 2019 at 11:00 am. Upon identification of relevant documents by the Appellant the certified copies of documents upto 50 pages shall to be provided to him, free of cost, after redacting the names of the property tax payers and other third party information, in terms of the RTI Act. Compliance report shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission by 03.12.2019. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action by the Commission.
(ii). Before the inspection of the relevant records, the Appellant is under obligation to satisfy the Respondent his locus standi/ownership pertaining to the land/property in respect of which information is being obtained. Appellant is directed to carry a valid ID proof on the date of inspection of the records.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/164457 Appellant filed RTI application dated 15.02.2018 seeking information on 9 points.
1. Provide certified copy of re-development plan of Ranjit Nagar, Shadipur dated 19.01.1967.
2. In which village lands was this area plan implemented, area of land on which it was developed, by which development authority and under which policy? Provide complete details.
3. Provide certified copy of file in relation to point 1 above and also provide inspection of file.
4. Provide copy of Khasra Plan of the layout plan mentioned in point 1 above. Etc PIO/(Land Branch), vide letter dated 26.03.2018 furnished the information on queries no. 2 and 5-9.
Page 5 of 7APIO/Tensildar (P.N.) vide letter dated 07/10.04.2018 forwarded the reply received from Sh. Pawan Kumar, Halka Patwari on 07.04.2018 whereby information was denied to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 27.04.2018. FAA vide order dated 16.08.2018 directed the PIO/SDM (Patel Nagar) to provide the revised reply to the Appellant within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Submission dated 09.09.2019 has been received from PIO/SDM (Patel Nagar) whereby Respondent offers the opportunity to conduct inspection of records to the Appellant.
Submission dated 05.09.2019 is received from PIO/Architect-2, DUSIB which indicates that information to queries no. 1-4 has duly been provided to the satisfaction of the Appellant. A handwritten note from the Appellant to substantiate the submission thereof is also enclosed therewith. Appellant submits that while adequate information in response to queries no. 1-4 has duly been provided to him, however, information pertaining to queries no. 5-9 has yet to be provided. Appellant is aggrieved by the questionable conduct of APIO Tehsildar, Sh. B.D. Meena who initially vide letter dated 07/10.04.2018 denied the information but pursuant to FAO, has furnished the information, as received, on 09.11.2018. Appellant is further aggrieved over non-compliance with the directions of the FAO by the Respondent public authority.
Decision:
Commission notes that the reply sent by Sh. Pawan Kumar, Halka Patwari vide letter dated 07.04.2018 is illegible, evasive & dilatory. The PIO/ SDM(P.N.) should have ensured that a proper reply was being sent to the Appellant before serving it. There has been a delay of almost 3 months in compliance with the order of the FAA by the then APIO (P.N.) Sh. B.D. Meena. However the then APIO (P.N.) Sh. B.D. Meena has now retired and there is little purpose in pursuing action against him. Perusal of the records further indicate that FAO was passed after a period of 4 months from the date of filing of the First Appeal. This reflects very poorly on the state of affairs in the Respondent public authority.The Commission expresses its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the public authority, in not providing a timely reply to the Appellant and the FAA in not adjudicating the First Appeal on time.
After hearing the contentions of both the parties the locus standi of the Appellant has duly been established. Appellant claims that his family had acquired the Shadipur land since the year 1860 therefore he is an interested party and any information sought by him does not constitute third party information.
In view of the circumstances of the present case, Commission hereby directs:Page 6 of 7
(i). The PIO/Dr. Atish Kumar, SDM, Patel Nagar to provide inspection of complete records to the Appellant by 29th November, 2019. Upon identification of relevant documents by the Appellant the certified copies of documents upto 50 pages shall to be provided to him, free of cost.
Compliance report shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission by 13.12.2019. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action by the Commission.
(ii). The PIO/Dr. Atish Kumar, SDM, Patel Nagar to submit a satisfactory and detailed explanation for a) not providing information to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause, b) non-compliance of the FAA's order within the prescribed time, thereby causing an obstruction in the flow of information and c) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. This explanation must reach the Commission within 4 weeks from the date of issue of this order, with a copy marked to the Appellant, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
(iii). In the event of non-availability of the relevant records, PIO/Dr. Atish Kumar, SDM, Patel Nagar shall file a duly sworn affidavit on a non- judicial stamp paper before the Commission explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability of records or missing records, the action taken to restore them and the details of the actual custodian of records, if known. A copy of the affidavit thereof shall also be marked to the Appellant.
(iv). Appellant is directed to carry a valid ID proof on the date of inspection of the records.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 7 of 7