Central Information Commission
Anjali Seth vs Land And Development Office on 27 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.414, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
F. No. CIC/KY/A/2014/001219-YA
Date of Hearing : 16.11.2017
Date of Decision(Interim) : 16.11.2017
Date of Decision : 04.05.2018
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 12.07.2018
24.08.2018
Date of Final Decision :
Appellant/Complainant : Anjali Seth
Respondent : PIO /L&DO
Through:- Sh. N K Sinha-Section
Officer, L&DO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.05.2014
PIO replied on : 16.06.2014
First Appeal filed on : 23.08.2014
First Appellate Order on : 18.09.2014
2nd Appeal/complaint received on :
Show Cause Decision
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 27.05.2014 sought for inspection of record and supply/inspection of record of L&DO pertaining to allotment made, lease executed, applications made, copies of office noting, decision taken, including the record of Settlement Commissioners, and related documents/information with regard to the plot bearing No.5, Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar - III, New Delhi. The appellant also sought to know about the current occupier of the said plot. etc. PIO vide letter dated 16.06.2014 informed the appellant as under:
"..I am to refer to your RTI application dated 27.05.2014 on the above mentioned subject and to say that from the available record, it is seen that it has not been conclusively established as to who is the rightful owner of the aforesaid property. As such, your request Page 1 of 6 for inspection of the file and providing the documents cannot acceded to..."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal. The FAA upheld the decision of PIO. The appellant approached the Commission.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
The Second Appeal was dismissed by the Commission vide its order dated 11.03.2015 by taking a view that respondents have provided the requisite information in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide his final judgement /order dated 10.08.2017 allowed the said WP(C) 5585 of 2015 with the following directions :
"It is apparent that the CIC has failed to apply its mind to the controversy in question. It appears that the impugned order has been passed in complete ignorance of the facts of the present case and on the basis of a template available with the CIC. The petitioner has provided the necessary grounds for contesting the decision of the CPIO to deny the inspection and information sought by her. She had provided cogent reasons to canvass that the information as sought by the petitioner was not exempt from disclosure. CIC was required to examine the same and deal with the contentions advanced by the petitioner.
The endeavour of the petitioner was to seek information with regard to allotment of the said property in question, considering that there is a controversy regarding the allotment of the property. In this context, such information could not be denied on the ground that it was not established whether the petitioner's grandmother was the rightful owner of the property in question.
In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider the petitioner's application and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from today."
Facts emerging during hearing:
Only the Respondent has appeared during the hearing to the exclusion of the appellant. The Respondent submitted that the backdrop of the instant RTI case is rather complicated since the property/land in question has changed hands multiple number of times by way of valid as well as invalid transfer documents. Today multiple claimants to the same property have approached the Court and various cases are pending in different Courts. The appellant who has contested the case in the High Court refuses to appear before the Page 2 of 6 Respondent whenever called for a meeting. Likewise she has not appeared for the hearing today as well.
Interim Decision: 16.11.2017 In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to submit a complete status of all the pending litigations with respect to the property in question located at Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi and also any other relevant documents pertaining to the property in question. This submission from the Respondent shall reach the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order. Registry of this Bench is directed to issue fresh Notice of hearing in order that the appellant is provided another opportunity of being heard.
Final Decision: 24.05.2018 Pursuant to the aforementioned directions of the Commission, it is noted that vide response dated 16.11.2017, the CPIO/L&DO Sh. S K Babbar had informed this Commission as follows:
"....It is submitted that in respect of property bearing No. BP-5, Feroz Gandhi Road, two lease deeds were executed, one dated 17.11.1956 in favour of Shri K C Narula for an area measuring 1786 sq. yds. and another dated 29.10.1957 in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari Seth for an area measuring 800 sq. yds. Both the lessees have since expired and their legal heirs/successors have requested for transfer of title of the property in their favour. The main point is that the title of the property has not been conclusively established and the matter is sub judice. At present there is no rightful owner. Therefore, Ms. Anjali Seth cannot be treated as legal owner and documents were not supplied to her...."
Examination of the factual background of the case reveals some important facts of the case:
i. Appellant has claimed that her late grandmother Smt. Raj Kumari Seth received the land at Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, by way of allotment order dated 21.11.1954 passed by the Settlement Officer.
ii. After the demise of Smt. R K Seth on 29.05.1962, her two sons viz. Sh. Raj Krishan Seth and Sh. Kanwar Krishan Seth obtained Letter of Administration in respect of the said property. Subsequently vide registered Wills dated 28.10.1992 and 24.05.2005, both brothers transferred their respective half share in the property in favour of the appellant.
iii. By an order dated 21.08.1998, Settlement Officer had defeated the claim of Appellant's grandmother Smt. Raj Kumari Seth and her legal heirs, Page 3 of 6 holding that the rightful owner of the property was Late Shri Khan Chand Narula.
iv. The legal heirs of Late Shri Khan Chand Narula and Late Smt. Raj Kumari Seth have been fighting multiple litigations claiming ownership over the aforesaid property.
In the aforementioned facts of the case, it becomes all the more pertinent to get a fair idea of all the pending litigations with respect to the property in question located at Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi; current position with respect to ownership and occupation of the property and also the relevant documents pertaining to the property in question.
Accordingly, a reminder dated 11.01.2018 was issued by the Registry of this Bench seeking compliance of the Commission's directions dated 16.11.2017. However, Sh. S K Babbar-PIO/Dy. Land and Development Officer has not furnished any status report, till date, in terms of the directions of this Commission.
The Commission therefore directs Registry of this Bench to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE upon Sh. S. K. Babbar for causing deliberate obstruction in the dissemination of information, violation of provisions of the RTI Act and for wilful non compliance of the directions of this Commission. The Noticee must submit his reply atleast one week prior to the hearing of the Show Cause case, explaining clearly why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him for non compliance of the directions of this Commission.
Show Cause Hearing: 12.07.2018 During the hearing of the Show Cause case, Noticee - Sh. S K Babbar - Dy. Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development has appeared and placed on record Written Submissions dated 06.07.2018 stating the position of various litigations which are pending before various forums. Relevant excerpt whereof are as follows:
"1. It is submitted that the ownership of the property is under dispute. The decision has been taken by the Govt. Of India to get the above mentioned property protected through raising of boundary wall till the ownership is decided (Annexure-B). As per order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 09.09.03 in CWP No. 965/2000, the Settlement Commissioner (Appeal) is to take up the petition under Section 22 for disposal on merits. Since the DPCR Act has been repealed from September, 2005, the appeal under the provision of said Act cannot be disposed of. As per advice of M/o Law, a Miscellaneous Civil application for fresh adjudication of Page 4 of 6 CWP has been filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is informed by the Govt. Counsel in the case that on the date of hearing on 09.05.2016, the Hon'ble Court has directed either to withdraw the MCA as DPCR Act stands repealed or the Court will dismiss the case with cost.
2. On the hearing on 02.09.2016, the Hon'ble Court has granted permission to withdraw the application. The case is now to be decided by the Land & Development Officer as the DPCR Act stands repealed. Since the title of the property is already under dispute, it is not conclusively established that who is the rightful owner of the property and it was decided to construct the boundary wall for care and maintenance on as is and whereas basis to protect the Plot No. BP-5, NH-III, Feroz Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar. Shri Hans Raj Narula has filed a court case in the Court of Ms. Shelly Arora, ASCG/JSCC/CJ, Saket Court praying therein to restrain the Defendant from interfering in lawful possession of suit property (Annexure-).
3. Sh. Chagan Lal Tiwari has filed a Court Case against Sh. Hans Raj Narula in the Court of Sh. Sushil Anuj Tyagi, SCJ, Saket Court, New Delhi vide no. CS SCJ No. 642 of 2017. The case is still pending in the Hon'ble Court (Annexure-D).
4. Shri J.L. Chawla has also filed a Court Case in the Suit No. CS/SCJ/763/2017 titiled as J.L. Chawla & Anr. Vs Union of India & others in the Court of Ms. Shriya Agarwal Civil Judge (South East), Room No. 608, 6th Floor, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi.
The case is still pending in the Hon'ble Court (Annexure-E).
5. The property has been inspected and the report is enclosed. The CIC is requested to take a sympathetic view and condon the delay (Annexure-F).
However, the report as mentioned in the paragraph 5 as Annexure F above, was not found with the submissions. The Noticee has nowhere endeavoured to offer any explanation for the delay in submission of the aforesaid status of litigation since 16.11.2017 (when this Commission issued the Interim directions) till date. The Noticee has failed to provide any cogent reason justifying the condonation of delay, as prayed by him. The Noticee has averred that he was on training, though he has not substantiated any of his submissions.
Upon examination of the facts of the case, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that since the first date of hearing in this case, i.e. on 16.11.2017, the prime query which was required to be addressed was whether the information as sought by the appellant viz. [supply/inspection of record of Page 5 of 6 L&DO pertaining to allotment made, lease executed, applications made, copies of office noting, decision taken, including the record of Settlement Commissioners, and related documents/information with regard to the plot bearing No.5, Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar - III, New Delhi and its current occupier] qualifies to be made public or for exemption from disclosure.
The Noticee has not been able to point out a single provision of law, which debars disclosure of this information, being so exempt by exercise of the RTI Act. The explanation to the Show Cause Notice, as submitted by the Noticee does not establish any reasonable ground for withholding the information from the appellant since 2014. Nor has the Noticee been able to satisfy the Commission about the existence of any overwhelming situations which prevented him from disseminating clear and specific information, within mandated period of time. Despite adequate time and opportunity, the Noticee has not been able to furnish any explanation for causing obstruction in the flow of information.
Thus in this case, Noticee - Sh. S K Babbar - Dy. Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development is found responsible for the failure in dissemination of information at the relevant point of time. Hence, the Commission in exercise of provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act imposes penalty to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- on the then PIO/Dy. Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development - Sh. S K Babbar for deliberate denial and concealment of information thereby contravening the mandatory provisions of the RTI Act.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner As per the decision of Commission of even date, in exercise of powers vested under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 penalty of Rupees Fifteen Thousand is being imposed on the PIO/Dy. Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development - Sh. S K Babbar which should be paid in three equal instalments of Rupees Five Thousand each.
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 6 of 6