CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000262/12228
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000262
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mange Ram Sharma
S/o Shri Tej Ram
Residence Near Shri Ji nursing Home
Bawana, Delhi Road
Delhi - 110039
Respondent : Dr. B. M. Mishra
PIO & SDM Narela
Revenue Department, GNCTD
MPCC Building, Village- Naya Bass,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 05/10/2010
PIO replied on : 04/11/2010
First Appeal filed on : 02/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order of : 31/12/2010
Second Appeal received on : 27/01/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of PIO
1.i On plot No.137 there has been encroachment by plot Nos. The plan is rather clear. (A copy was
154/658.Is this incursion as per plan? provided)
1.ii Provide the specific perimeter of plot nos. 137and 154/658. Information is outside the scope of
RTI Act
1.iii Specifically provide the extent of encroachment on each plot. -do-
2.i Provide details about the presence of Raghuvir Singh f/o East- 30 gaj; West - 30 gaj; North-
Nafe Singh on plot no. 154/658. 9 ½; South - 9 ½.
2.ii What is the specific area that has been illegally occupied by Can only be specified after
Raghuvir singh. inspection.
3.i. What the difference between the raqba as per the plans Can only be specified after
available with sitara Kumar Vagorra and the normal plans. Is inspection.
the difference normal?
4.i. What is the difference in the raqba as per the plans available Can be told only after inspection
with Mange Ram Vagorra of Plot No - 154/656
5.i Mange Ram Vagorra had submitted an application about the (Reply not legible)
illegal occupation of his plot 19.02.2010.No action has been
taken in this regards.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information not satisfactory
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO had furnished the requisite information to the appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information regarding physically occupied area under certain plots has not been given satisfactorily or
sufficiently by the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
Appellant: Mr. Mange Ram Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Naib Tehsildar on behalf of Dr. B. M. Mishra, PIO & SDM Narela;
The Appellant has been provided all the information based on the available records. He also
admits that he has been complaining about the encroachment of his land and the matter is in the
Consolidation Officer’s Court. This matter would have to be resolved there and this Commission
cannot interfere in this matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
02 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)