Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Kama Place
New Delhi
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000270
Name of Appellant : Sh. Hitendra M. Mota
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of Respondent : Airport Authority of India, Mumbai
(Represented by Sh. P. Anu Kumar, Sh. K.
K. Gupta and Sh. Harish Mehta, on
behalf of FAA.)
The matter was heard on : 8.09.2010 (Reserved for orders)
ORDER
Sh. Hitendra M. Mota, the Appellant, filed an application dated 29.06.2007
seeking therein to inspect files, take copies of notices, extracts or certified copies of
documents pertaining to land at Marol Village, Mumbai under survey No 117, (1). Dy.
Gen. Manager (LM), Airport Authority of India (AAI) vide letter dated 30.08.2007,
informed the Appellant that award and possession received in respect of survey no.
117(1) was not available. Aggrieved with the reply of the PIO / Dy. Gen. Manager (LM),
the Appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Subsequently
Dy. Gen. Manager (LM), vide letter dated 7.05.2009, informed the Appellant that the
land in question was acquired under war notification by the Collector as per the Bombay
Government Gazette, April 9, 1953, and documentary evidence regarding the payment
of receipt of compensation may be obtained from the State Govt. In response to the
first appeal of the Appellant, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), in his order dated
25.06.2009, has observed as follows:-
” 3.1 Having gone through the appeal and the case details, it has been observed that
the reply given by the CPIO, WR, does not appear to be proper and as per the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. AAI, being the owner of the land, is expected to have
the documentary evidence showing ownership of AAI and if not the CPIO should have
referred the application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the public authority
which possesses the records.
3.2 I therefore direct the CPIO, AAI, WR, to provide to the Appellant the records
whatever available with AAI within 15 working days from the date of issue of this order
and what is not available with AAI, to transfer the application to the public authority,
which is holding the records, at the earliest possible.”
In pursuance to the order of the FAA, the Appellant visited the office of CPIO on
6.08.2009 and examine the file shown by the CPIO. However, no documents were
available which confirmed the ownership of the property in question.
During the inspection the Appellant was informed that some documents were
lying in a general file and were not available for inspection. The request for further
inspection of the concerned file was rejected by stating that, that information sought for
was 3rd party information and the matter is pending before the Civil Court.
Aggrieved by this rejection the Appellant again filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority (FAA). In response to this second appeal the FAA, vide order dated
8.10.2009, allowed the appeal with the following observations / directions:-
“3.1 Having gone through the appeal and the case details, it has been observed that
the Appellant has admitted to have seen the file containing documents pertaining to
survey No. 117/1, but did not find any document vesting the land with AAI or collector or
MIAL. The grounds of rejection of application are not justified. I therefore direct the
CPIO, WR, to show the records that prove ownership of land with AAI if the disclosure
does not impede the investigation. If so, the application may be rejected under specific
provision giving justification for applicability of the provision under the RTI Act, 2005.
This may be done within 15 working days from the date of issue of this order.”
In pursuance to the order of the FAA, the Appellant again approached the CPIO
with a request to provide documentary evidence to show the ownership of land survey
no. 117(1) with the AAI. In response to this request of the Appellant declined the
request of the Appellant on the following three grounds:-
“(1) The respondents have already handover all the relevant documents to appellant
on previous occasions. (2) The respondent is not in possession of any General file as
stated by the appellant several occasion and (3) The matter is sub-judice and therefore
in the interest of AAI neither Xerox copies of any more document can be handed over to
the appellant nor the inspection of file can be permitted.”
Against the denial of the request, the Appellant again approached the FAA. However,
this time the FAA vide order dated 29.12.2009 disallowed the appeal of the Appellant on
the grounds that the issue of ownership of the land in question is subjudice. Hence, the
present appeal before the Commission.
In his second appeal the Appellant has prayed for relief on the following
grounds:-
“1. The appellant submits that the CPIO/WR/AAI has never produced any
documentary evidence like possession receipts, proof of compensation paid to the land
owners or proof rent paid to Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai inspite of
directions given by the higher authorities.
2. The appellant submits that reason given by the CPIO/WR on various occasions
were never consistent and proper and evidently deviating from the main issue by giving
misleading information.
3. The appellant submits that sworn affidavit by the AAI before the City Civil court of
Bombay in suit No. 5886/93 in Page No. 3 claimed that the plot situated at 117 (1)
belongs to AAI and necessary compensation were paid to Misquittas and also
confirmed that they are paying rent regularly to Municipal Corporation of Mumbai have
never been substantiated by any documentary evidence.
4. The appellant submits that the respondent have never shown any authentic
document proving the ownership of land survey no. 117 (1) till date.
6. The appellant submits that Section 8(1)(b) of RTI Act-2005, explains that unless
the information sought is not expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or
tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court, RTI does not
provide any exemption from disclosure of sub-judice matters.
7. The CIC in appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/0093 date d18/09/2006 stated that “the
RTI Act provided no exemption from disclosure of sub-judice matters.”
During the hearing the Respondent submit that the issue of ownership of land in
question is before the concerned court and documents like compensation paid and
possession receipt relating to the ownership of land in question are not available with
the AAI.
After hearing the Respondent and keeping in view the pleading of the Appellant
in his second appeal, the Commission finds merit in the contention of the Appellant that
the information requested is not exempted under any of the provision of the RTI Act.
In view of the above the CPIO is hereby directed to make sincere efforts to locate
the concerned file and provide requisite information to the Appellant within 15 days of
receipt of the Commission’s order. What is not available with AAI, the CPIO is directed
to transfer the application to the Public Authority which is holding the records..
With these directions the matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
14.06.2011
Authenticated true copy
(K. K. Sharma)
OSD & Asst.Registrar
Copy to:
1. Sh. Hitendra M. Mota
45-A, Mittal Tower
210 Nariman Point
Mumbai-400021
2. The Public Information Officer
Dy. Gen. Manager (Land/Commercial)
Airports Authority of India
Commercial Department
CSI Airport
Mumbai
3. The Appellate Authority
Member (P&A)
Airports Authority of India
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan
Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi-110003