Central Information Commission
Deepak Juneja vs Delhi Development Authority on 24 July, 2020
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/KY/C/2016/000021-YA
CIC/KY/C/2016/000022-YA
CIC/KY/C/2016/000023-YA
Date of Hearing : 22.05.2017
Date of Decision : 22.05.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Deepak Juneja
Respondent : Delhi Development Authority
Through: Sh. M L Sharma, Asstt.
Director/PIO; Sh. N C Bhatt, Dy.
Director, OSB and Sh. Om Prakash
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.01.2015
PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 03.06.2015
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.03.2017
Since all the three appeals arise out of the single RTI Application, and
involve the same parties, all the appeals are being clubbed for the
purpose of adjudication.
Information soughtand background of the case:
An RTI application dated 20.01.2015 as detailed below was filed before the CPIO, Ministry of Urban Development [MoUD]:
1. Information of all lands (whether residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural or any other), given on lease by the MoUD or any other agency, department, corporation etc. under it, where the leases have expired, and the leases which presently continue to be in possession of the lands in following format.
Name of Area Address Amount of Year when Year of expiry lease given on of the lease rent lease given of lease.
lease in land in (pm or pa)
sq.m. Delhi
2. If this list is not available for expired leases, please provide the above mentioned details for all lands given on lease.
3. Kindly provide complete office contact details of the PIO & FAA like Name, Office address, Landline number, office mobile number & email ID's.
The RTI application was transferred by the CPIO, MoUD under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Director, DDA; Director, Local Bodies and to the Land & Development Officer, L&DO on 30.01.2015. Records of the case reveal that Sr. Research Officer, DDA, RTI Implementation and Co ordination Branch by communication dated 03.03.2015 forwarded the application to the Dy. Director (Co ordination) Lands, who further marked it to the Dy. Director, OSB, CE,CL, LSB(I), GH, IL by communication dated 10.03.2015. Though the applicant was informed of the transfer of the application from one office to the other, frustrated with non receipt of any information, the applicant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2015, which was not decided by the FAA. Thus aggrieved with non disposal of his case and non receipt of information, applicant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and make detailed submissions.
1. Chronology of events relating to the matter reveal that RTI application sent to the CPIO, MoUD on 20.01.2015 after being transferred twice, reached the Dy. Director (Co-ordination) Lands on 03.03.2015 who further transferred it to 10 PIOs including the PIO, Dy. Director, OSB, CE, CL, LSB(I), GH, IL, CS, LA, LAB(RO) and LSB(RO) by communication dated 10.03.2015. The OSB means Old Scheme Branch is an Unit of the Respondent which deals with properties relating back to the British era and those which were let out on perpetual lease/s to various parties in the pre-independence era. The FAA/Dy. Director of Lands sent a hearing notice to the applicant despite the fact that applicant had sought exemption from presence and requested that decision may be taken based on records. No order was received from the FAAtill the Complaint dated 17.08.2015 was filed before the Commission. This was followed by a communication dated 28.09.2015 received by the applicant from PIO/Dy. Director(OSB), DDA stating that information as sought by the applicant is not available in the compiled form or in the format asked by him and hence the same cannot be provided under the RTI Act, 2005.
On the other hand the CPIO(IL) vide letter dated 28.08.2015 informed that "all land leases given by Institutional branch are on perpetual lease basis and there is no society in respect of which lease deed has expired. However, queries number 2 and 3 relating to details like name of lease, when was lease given etc. were not answered by the CPIO, IL. Pursuant to filing of the Complaint before the CIC, the CPIO vide another letter dated 24.09.2015 informed the FAA that information has been provided to the appellant referring to the letter dated 28.08.2015. And the FAA disposed of the appeal dated 03.06.2015 by order dated 30.09.2015 upholding the CPIO's reply. While the First Appeal was filed against 2 CPIOs viz. CPIO(IL) & CPIO(OSB), the FAA passed the order only qua the CPIO (IL), without commenting on the CPIO(OSB) at all.
The other response was received from CPIO, LSB-Rohini, after issuance of CIC's hearing notice dated 15.03.2016 whereby the Respondent/CPIO(LSB-RO) by a letter dated 05.04.2016 informed that the information regarding lease land whose leases have expired, as sought by the applicant does not pertain to his office as the branch deals with allotment of plot under Rohini Residential Scheme-1981.
2. The matter was subsequently listed before the Commission and summarily dismissed by the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by a predecessor Bench. Being aggrieved by the dismissal, the Applicant filed a Writ petition being WP(C) no. 2652/2017, challenging the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Commission. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 27.03.2017 disposed of the Writ Petition with the following observations:
".....Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of some personal reasons, he could not appear, when the matter was listed. He submits that the petitioner is very much interested in prosecuting the complaints filed before the Central Information Commission (CIC). He refers to the Notice of hearing to contend that it was not obligatory for him to appear. In view of the submissions made above, the impugned order dated 25.04.2016 is set aside. The complaints filed by the petitioner are restored to the file of the Commission....."
3. Subsequently, the matters were re-listed before the Commission for adjudication and parties were duly notified about hearing fixed on 22.05.2017.
4. Both parties were present during the hearing. Upon being asked by the Commission, the applicant narrated that his primary focus was to reveal information about properties leased out during the pre- independence era for 90 years or 99 years for private as well as institutional use. It is expected that due to passage of considerable period of time, these leases would have expired by now and thus the lease/s is/are no longer functional, yet the tenants/lessee continue to occupy the premises, which are usually spread over large spaces, for measly rental amounts which have barely been revised in all these years. Thus the lessees/occupants of the premises are residing in large properties virtually free of cost. Lack of knowledge of the number of such premises and lack of initiative of Municipal authorities for getting such premises vacated are leading to loss worth several crores to the Government. The query of the applicant is centred around the core issue of larger interest of the society, since public money is drained by loss of revenue with respect to these properties. Hence, the Commission applauds applicant's quest for information which indeed is for a national cause, considering that all Presidency towns have grown multi- fold as metropolitan cities and are bursting at the seams under the burden of over population. In such a scenario, occupying huge government properties at almost free of cost is definitely not in the interest of citizens nor of the Government since the properties can earn substantial revenue by leasing them at current market value. The applicant has requested that since he is seeking information in these cases, the Complaints may be converted into appeals.
5. Respondents on their part have stated that the query raised by the appellant in this case is one which has already been deliberated upon by the office of the Lieutenant Governor. Under directions of the Hon'ble LG and competent authorities, the Respondent is already duty bound to draw out the old records and files of such leases (granted during the pre-Independence period) from archives, if necessary, in order to put together necessary information about all such Old properties, their lessees, rental amounts, period of lease and take action with respect to properties whose leases have expired by efflux of time. The Respondent has added that since the perpetual leases of most of such old properties expired only recently, a specific window/Scheme was announced for a year, for occupants/lessees of all such Old properties to have the said lease/s renewed/extended. Applications received from such lessees were duly considered and lease/s extended. However, many properties which sums up to approximately 6000-7000 properties, were still left out from being granted any extension of lease, because of lack of any application. A draft policy has been formulated for such properties and action shall be initiated once the policy decision is finalised in this aspect. Stating their genuine difficulty, the Respondents explained that records are in different places, as the properties fell within different jurisdictions at the time the lease/s were executed and also the terms and laws governing lot of these properties were completely different in such historical period of time. Hence, collecting information at grass root level, pertaining to these properties and their land records/leases etc. will take considerable amount of time despite the fact that many a high officials including the office of the Hon'ble LG is keen on expeditious action on this issue. A minimum period of six months shall be required in coming anywhere close to formulating a Scheme/policy regarding these ancient properties and their residents.
6. The appellant corroborated his averments made in the preceding paragraph by his written submissions submitted during the hearing. He has placed reliance on two decisions of the Commission, whereby similar cases were decided bearing numbers CIC/DS/A/2013/002474- YA and CIC/YA/A/2015/000099 and it was held that information related to greater public interest and must be disclosed. The appellant has further stated that there has been inordinate delay in providing even the basic reply by the PIO and accordingly he must be penalised for violation of the provisions of the Act.
7. The appellant does not dispute the veracity of the reply furnished by the Respondent/CPIO-LSB(RO), but the breach of the mandated time line is strongly objected by the appellant. During the hearing, the Respondent stated that information as sought by the appellant is likely to be in the custody of the LAB, Rohini not LSB, Rohini. It was further contended by the Appellant that even the hearing notice issued by the Commission for today's hearing, was transferred by CPIO(LSB-RO) vide letter dated 16.05.2017 to the Dy. Director (Coordination) Lands u/S 6(3) to attend the hearing. He stated that this reveals the lack of understanding of the RTI Act by the Respondent. The Respondent replied that since the information related to the LAB-RO, the LSB branch transferred the hearing notice through the Dy. Director(Co ordination) Lands to the concerned official, so that the hearing can be attended by the relevant officer.
8. The Respondent, CPIO,IL on their part have explained their response dated 28.08.2015 stating that the Institutional Land Branch, came into existence only after formation of the DDA, post 1957. Hence, the perpetual leases granted by this Branch for Institutional use, have not yet expired since tenure of the perpetual leases is of 90 to 99 years. It has also been averred by the Respondents that with technological advancement, methods like satellite mapping of areas and such other effective methods are being employed in order to increase efficiency of the Land Management Department of NDMC.
Decision:
9. After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that the queries of the appellant have been clearly spelt out. He has asked for all the leases granted by the Government of India, under various categories, prior to the independence and thereafter. He has sought specific details with respect to each - whether continuing and decision taken with respect to the ones which have expired. The Commission commends the appellant for raising the issue since the loss of revenue on account of such leases continuing at throwaway prices is bringing a huge revenue loss to the exchequer.
10. Such an information was expected to be already available with the DDA considering the fact that planned development of Delhi is one of the primary functions of the DDA under Sections 7-11A of the DD Act of 1957. More so, when as informed by PIO, OSB that there are 6000- 7000 properties which are still under the OSB for deliberations whether to continue with such old leases or take appropriate action. The DDA also deals with the Master Plan, Zonal Plans etc. And yet its strange to find no mention of such leases on the website, the area coverage of such leases which would be vital for any future planning. Very briefly put, so far, the replies lead to the following information trail:
i. The properties handled by OSB are leases executed during the British era, some of which have expired recently and are under consideration of the Public Authority for their continuation or necessary further action. There are 6 to 7 thousand such properties which have been discussed even at the level of the Lieutenant Governor and appropriate directions have been given in this regard for segregation, tabulation etc. According to the OSB it will take roughly six months to even arrive at the total figure of such cases to be dealt with.
ii. The properties handled by the IL branch are the Institutional Leases which are accorded for 90-99 years. This branch which came into existence after 1957 has accorded leases, none of which has expired. However, they again despite having executed such leases do not have the record in a compiled form to give information about the numbers, lessees, purpose for which they were given and the area coverage.
iii. The third category is not clear. However, the position so emerged from the hearing that information pertaining all other categories of leasehold properties is available with the LAB-RO, but the RTI application reached the LSB-RO.
11. With respect to the first query, it is noted that the Respondents have contended that such old records are being reconstructed for drawing out an effective action plan for the old buildings and properties leased out almost a century back. It has been averred by the Respondent that since records are in different places, as the properties fell within different jurisdictions at the time the lease/s were executed, different laws governed the various parcels of land it is a herculean task and hence undeniably time consuming. It is also noted that it is impossible to answer the queries because of non availability of any compiled information, as it transpires from the above deliberations and also it is not possible to hold any one PIO as custodian of the information. The PIO's averments during the hearing have sought to explain the cause of delay in furnishing the information. The Commission finds that given the circumstances there was no compiled information to furnish and also the information sought was huge and could not have been given in the given period of time. The Commission however feels that this aspect should have been brought to the notice of the appellant at the first instance itself. The same argument runs through with respect to the Institutional leases also.
Conclusion
12. While the appellant has raised a genuine query, one which relates to public interest at large, the Commission also notes that the diverse custodians of information, rather the different designations held by the same public official, in this case makes it a virtually impossible exercise to seek the exact information from the exact custodian. The information seeker cannot be expected to go through this labyrinth of official designations to seek information. Hence the Commission is of the opinion that balancing the difficulty expressed by the Respondent with the query of the appellant, it is advisable that as a nodal point, the Senior Research Officer, RTI Cell- Co ordination Branch in coordination with the Deputy Director, OSB are given the responsibility to gather information from various custodians under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, collate and then disseminate to the appellant under intimation to the Commission within three weeks of the receipt of this order. The Reply should clearly state the following:
I.OSB- the current status of compilation of records with respect to the leases, their lessees, tenure, decision taken after expiry of such leases and the time expected for compilation of tabulation of complete data. Necessary documents with respect to the LG's meeting on this subject and directions of the LG in this regard shall also be furnished to the appellant.
II.IL - Same as above.
III.LAB-RO- The LAB-RO holding information in the above lines is also directed to provide complete information about the current status of compilation of records with respect to the leases, their lessees, tenure, decision taken after expiry of such leases and the time expected for compilation of tabulation of complete data. Since the PIO, LSB received the RTI application, the Commission directs the PIO, LSB to forthwith transfer the RTI application to the relevant custodian of information and ensure that accurate and complete response from the PIO, LAB is sent to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order, with a copy mandatorily marked to the Commission.
The main grievance of the appellant qua the LSB-RO was the delay in furnishing of reply by the CPIO, since as per statement of the PIO, LSB- RO, the actual custodian of information is LAB-RO. But it has not been explained by the PIO, LSB, Rohini anywhere as to what prevented him from transferring the RTI application to the PIO, LAB. The Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show Cause Notice upon the PIO, LSB, Rohini to explain why no penalty should be imposed on him for not transferring the RTI application to the appropriate custodian of information thereby causing deliberate obstruction to the flow of information. The PIO, LSB shall file this explanation/reply within two weeks of receipt of this order. Hearing of the Show Cause case to be scheduled in normal course.
In view of the aforesaid discussions on this matter, it is evident that no information with respect to the old leases of Government properties is available in a compiled form with the Respondent for the reasons cited above by the Respondent. However, it transpired during the course of hearing that officials including the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has indicated his keenness on the subject and directed the DDA and other Land management and Civic Bodies to devise a mechanism of identifying, segregating, tabulating and compiling information about such ancient leases. In the considered opinion of the Commission, the information as sought by the appellant should have been available in a compiled form with the Respondent/DDA, as noted above, and proactively disclosed by the public authority under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Keeping in view that the citizens of the country should have access to information about leased out public properties and drainage of public revenue with respect to the same, the Commission, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act, deems it appropriate to issue guidelines in this regard. Information regarding all such properties which had been historically leased by the Government of India, name/s of the lessees, type of lease - private or Institutional, tenure of such lease/s, number of expired lease/s, action taken with respect to expired leases/s etc. shall be compiled as directed above and published on the website of the Respondent/DDA.
The Respondent expressed that approximately six months will be required in compiling data about such historical Government lease/s, hence the Commission directs the Respondents to submit an Action Taken/Progress Report by or within August 2017 and a Compilation of data at the end of six months i.e. November 2017.
The appeals are thus allowed on the above terms.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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 Copy to:-
Senior Research Officer - RTI Cell Public Information Officer under RTI Delhi Development Authority, Shri N. K. Sharma - Dy. RTI Implementation & Dir.-(OSB), Delhi Development Co-ordination Branch, C-Block, Authority, Old Scheme Branch, 3rd Floor, VikasSadan, A-Block, 2nd Floor, VikasSadan, I.N.A. I.N.A. Market, NewDelhi-110023. Market, NewDelhi-110023. DEEPAK JUNEJA Public Information Officer under RTI DeputyDirector-Coordination-
(Lands),Delhi Development Authority,Lands Department, A-
Block,Ground Floor, VikasSadan, I.N.A. Market, NewDelhi-110023.
First Appellate Authority under RTI Public Information Officer under RTI Shri SanjeevMittal-Director-(Lands), Deputy Land & Development DelhiDevelopment Authority, Lands Officer, Land & Development Department, A-Block, 2ndFloor, Office (Ministry of Urban VikasSadan, I.N.A.Market, Development), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110023. New Delhi-110001.
Nodal Officer - RTI Cell, Nodal Officer - RTI Cell, Office of the Director, Office of the Director, Directorate of Local Bodies Directorate of Local Bodies (Government of NCT of Delhi), (Government of NCT of Delhi), 9th Level, C-Wing, Delhi 9th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, NewDelhi- Secretariat, I.P. Estate, NewDelhi- 110002. 110002. Deputy Director-Land Sale Branch- Deputy Director-Inst. Lands, Rohini,Delhi DevelopmentAuthority Delhi DevelopmentAuthority Land SalesBranch-Rohini, Institutional LandsBranch, VikasSadan,
VikasSadan,INA Market, New Delhi-23. INAMarket, New Delhi-23. ADJUNCT ORDER:
Date of Hearing: 22.07.2020 Note: Aggrieved due to non-compliance of the order of the Commission by the Public Authority the Complainant approached the Commission vide letter dated 19.09.2017.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Deepak Juneja in person;
Respondent: Mr. Paras Nath, Dy. Dir. LAB (Rohini & LSB), Mr. Lalit Mohan, AD (LAB) (RO), Mr. Indresh Kumar, Dy. Dir. (OSB) and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AD/ OSB and Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel and Mr. Sada Shiv, Dy. Dir. (IL) in person;
The Complainant referred to the order of the Commission dated 22.05.2017 and stated that the direction contained therein to submit an Action Taken/Progress Report by or within August 2017 and to disclosure the minutes with respect to the LG's meeting on this subject and directions of the LG in this regard were not complied, till date. Thus, the Complainant referred to his non-compliance application and prayed that penal action be initiated against the erring official and compensation be provided to him. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the decision of the Commission dated 22.05.2017 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 7786/2017 wherein vide order dated 05.09.2017, the Court held as under:
"In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the directions issued by the CIC to DDA to compile the said data. The question whether the same ought to be disclosed in the manner as directed by the CIC, would be examined at a subsequent stage. Accordingly, DDA is directed to complete this exercise within a period of nine months from today. Further issues raised in this petition would be considered, thereafter."
The counsel for the Respondent referred to their detailed affidavit dated 22.07.2020 submitted to the Commission and the Complainant during the hearing and stated that the direction of the Hon'ble High Court had been complied with by the OSB Branch of DDA and the said data would be disclosed as per the directions of the High Court in the said matter. During the hearing, the Respondent also intimated that the matter was expected to be tentatively listed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 27.07.2020 and that the directions of the Court would be suitably complied with. The Complainant vehemently contested the submissions of the Respondent. On being queried, if he had raised this issue during the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, the Complainant replied in the negative.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and considering the fact that the earlier decision pronounced by the Commission dated 22.05.2017 was presently under adjudication with the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 7786/2017, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted at this stage.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 24.07.2020