CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000689/12474Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000689
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Harish Chander,
RZ 102Nursing Garden,
A Block Khyala,
New Delhi-110018
Respondent (1) : Mr. A. D. Biswas
PIO & Sr. Town Planner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Planning Department,
13th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002
(2) PIO & Assistant Commissioner (West Zone)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
West Zone, Vishal Enclave,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
(3) PIO & DC(West)
Revenue Department, GNCTD
O/o the Dy. Commissioner (West)
Rampura, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 14/01/2011
PIO replied on : 11/02/2011
First Appeal filed on : 06/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 10/03/2011
Sl. Query Reply of PIO
1. What action has been taken on the complaint of land encroachment As per enquiry and available records,
in Khyala the land does not pertain to this
division
2. Who owns the land attached in the layout to the north of RZ-104, It does not pertain to this division
RZ-105 and RZ-102-A?
3. If this land belongs to the respective owner of plots, request for As above
papers of the properties
4. The land has been handed to the current owner for what As above
consideration? The amount, date and mode of payment along with
the duty amount to the Govt.
5. If this land belongs to he Govt. then why no action has been taken As per reply for query 1
till date with respect to the previous complaints
6. When and how this land will be restored to its rightful owner? As above
7. Has the Govt. issued any permit/ license to owner of RZ-105, RZ- It does not pertain to this division
102-A
8. If this land at any time belonged to the public, was the sale brought As above
to the notice of the public? Provide notice if yes
9. What is the interest of police officials and Departments of the Govt. As above
to safeguard and allow continuation of construction on public land?
10. Why as per the RTI application dated 29/02/2010, contrary As per reply to query 1
assessments have been made regarding the position of the
encroachment?
Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the First Appeal:
1. No information provided by the PIO.
2. Information obtained by respective Departments are contradictory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not on record.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
3. No information provided by the PIO.
4. Each Department is shrugging responsibility.
5. Threats from the affected party and his corrupt links.
6. Information obtained by respective Departments are contradictory.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 23 May 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Harish Chander;
Respondent: Mr. A. D. Biswas, PIO & Sr. Town Planner;
“The Appellant had filed the RTI application with the Chief Minister’s Office who had transferred it to
Additional Dy. Commissioner MCD(HQ), PIO Irrigation and Flood Control Department (HQ) and PIO DC(West)
Revenue Department. Additional Dy. Commissioner MCD(HQ) further transferred RTI application on 21/12/2010
to Assistant Commissioner (West Zone) and PIO Town Planning Department. From evidence produced by the
Appellant it appears that he has received information from PIO Irrigation and Flood Control Department and PIO
Town Planning Department in which it has been stated that the issue of encroachment and ownership of the public
land does not fall under their jurisdiction. It appears that PIO Assistant Commissioner (West Zone) and PIO
DC(West) Revenue Department, Rampur, Delhi have not sent any information to the Appellant.”
Commission’s Decision dated 23 May 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIOs of Assistant Commissioner (West Zone) MCD and DC(West) Revenue Department,
Rampur, Delhi are directed to provide the information available as per records to the Appellant before 15
June 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
Assistant Commissioner (West Zone) MCD and PIO DC(West) Revenue Department, Rampur, Delhi
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are guilty of not furnishing information within
the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the
RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on them.
PIO Assistant Commissioner (West Zone) MCD and PIO DC(West) Revenue Department, Rampur, Delhi will
present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 16 June 2011 at 02.30PM alongwith their
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20
(1). They will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post
receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.”
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause Hearing on 16 June 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Harish Chander;
Respondent: Mr. S. K. Mittal, Executive Engineer & Deemed PIO;
“The respondent states that the information being sought is about an alleged encroachment in Narsing
Garden, A-Block, RZ 102-104, Khayala. This is an unauthorized colony and hence only the Revenue Department
can provide the status of the land and the lay out plan if any to the MCD. The Commission had directed
PIO/DC(West) Rampura to appear before the Commission today but he has not appeared. He has also not sent any
explanation for not presenting himself before the Commission.
Page 2 of 3
Therefore the Commission is issuing a summons to PIO/DC(West) Revenue Department Rampura to appear
before the Commission with the information and his explanation why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be
imposed on him on 06 July 2011 at 04.30PM.”
Adjunct Decision dated 16 June 2011:
“Dy. Commissioner (West) is directed to present himself before the Commission with the information and
explanation on 06 July 2011 at 04.30PM”
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause Hearing on 06 July 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Harish Chander;
Respondent: Mr. Ajay Rawal, PIO & SDM(Patel Nagar), O/o the Dy. Commissioner (West);
There is no clarity about the land that the Appellant is seeking information about. The Appellant alleges
that the Land is public land and is being encroached. He states that he had made multiple complaints about the
encroachment on public land but no government office is willing to take any action. From the careless and
nonchalant attitude being adopted by MCD, Revenue Department and Flood Control Department. Since it appears
that this is public land the Commission directs SDM(Patel Nagar) to carry out the demarcation of the said land
before 30 July 2011. The Commission will hold SDM(Patel Nagar) responsible for getting the demarcation done
and informing the Appellant about the owner of the Land. In view of the fact that there is confusion about the
ownership of the land the Commission drops the penalty proceedings in the matter.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs SDM(Patel Nagar) to get the demarcation done and inform the
Appellant about the owner of the Land before 30 July 2011
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (DW))
Page 3 of 3