Mr.Jai Prakash vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 May, 2010

                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                      Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                              Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                      Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000662/7805
                                                            Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000662

Appellant                                    :       Mr. Jai Prakash,
                                                     S/o Shri Hari Ram,
                                                     Village- Kangan Hedi,
                                                     New Delhi-110071

Respondent                                   :      Mr. Rajiva Shukla
                                                    Public Information Officer &
                                             Sub Divisional Magistrate (NG)
                                             Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
                                                    BDO Office Complex,
                                             Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.

RTI application filed on                     :       09/10/2009
PIO replied                                  :       21/10/2009
First Appeal filed on                        :       26/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order              :       19/11/2009
Second Appeal Received on                    :       25/02/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on                    :       17/04/2010
Hearing Held on                              :       20/05/2010

S.N                     Information Sought                                PIO's Reply
1.    Whether it is true that Khasra no. 100 which is As per record, Rakba of khasra no.
      known as Chaupal, of which Rakaba East-West is 100 is (0-8), Chaupal of which 10
      5 Gathha & North-South is 10 in village Hedi.          Gadhe in East, 10 Gadhe in West
                                                             and 5 Gadhe in North & South is
                                                             mentioned.
2.    Whether it is true that this Chaupal is reconstructed Not concerned with.
      of which area is 11 Gaththa North-South & 10
      Gaththa East-West.
3.    Provide details of how illegal encroachment had Not concerned with.
      been done as Rakba of the Khasra No.-100 is 5 x
      10 Gaththa.
4.    Whether this is result of collusion official.          Not concerned with.
5.    If it is true that there is encroachment more than its For this action, this is appropriate to
      Rakba, then name of official who is responsible for ask BDO.
      this. What is there provision for taking action
      against the official responsible for this?
6.    Whether it is true that some portion of ancestral Not concerned with.
      house was included with Khasra no. 100 was
      demolished. What is there provision for taking
      action against the official responsible for this?
7.    Whether any work was done earlier on Khasra no. Not concerned with.
      100(Chaupal) any department. If yes, then furnish
     name of the Deptt. with photocopies of work-order,
     drawing work, work done on how many area, and
     its cost.
8.   Whether it is true that Revenue Department has Details of khasra no. 100 is
     right to remove encroachment?                      mentioned in S.No1. it is
                                                        appropriate to aske BDO in respect
                                                        of remove encroachment.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete information.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"The Appellant had sought the certain information from the PIO/SDM (NG), who is said to have
called the requisite information from Tehsil Palam Office as well as BDO office. He furthers
states that the Public Information Officer failed to provide the complete information. He further
adds that the SDM (NG) has completed the formalities of replying to the RTI application
irrespectively of whether the reply he is giving is proper or not.

Necessary information seems to have been provided by SDM(NG) Office. The information in
regard to Question No. 2, 3, 4, 6, & 7 may be provided by BDO (SW)."

Grounds for Second Appeal:
Incomplete information.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. R. N. Kaushik, Naib Tehsildar on behalf of Mr. Rajiva Shukla, PIO & SDM;

The Respondent shows that information was provided to the Appellant on 18/12/2009
after the order of the FAA. The Appellant has not stated the reasons for being dissatisfied with
the information provided.

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
20 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj