Mr.Pravesh Kumar Kanojia vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 June, 2011

                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                           Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000890/12695
                                                                   Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000890

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                             :       Sh. Parvesh Kumar Kanojia,
                                              Vanar Sena, 14/5, Raj Pur Road,
                                              Civil Lines, New Delhi-110054

Respondent                            :       Mr. Vijay Bharadwaj
                                              PIO & SDM (CL),
                                              Revenue department, GNCDT
                                              O/o Dy. Commissioner (North), GNCTD,
                                              1, Kirpan Narain Marg, New Delhi- 110054

RTI application filed on              :       24.12.2011
PIO replied to application on         :       17.01.2011
First Appeal on filed on              :       25.01.2011
First Appellate Authority order of    :       08.03.2011
Second Appeal received on             :       01.04.2011

Information Sought                                             Reply of the PIO
Name and address of actual owner of Land 21, Raj Niwas         The office does not maintain the record of
Marg, Kashra No: 431, Civil Lines, Delhi- 54.                  ownership. In absence of registration,
Photocopy of mutation and Registry of the said land.           particulars of the documents cannot be
                                                               provided to the applicant.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal was dismissed on grounds that the PIO had furnished available information within the
prescribed time-limit. The FAA had also stated that the information is not kept property-wise but is
kept by date of registration. If the appellant would provide the date of registration, it would be possible
to provide the information.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
Not satisfied with the information provided by the PIO.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Mr. Vijay Bharadwaj, PIO & SDM (CL),
The respondent states that the appellant has not provided the date of registration, hence no
further information can be provided.
Decision:

The Appeal is dismissed.

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
03 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AA)