CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000663/12417
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000663
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ran Singh
H. No. 74-A, Dhaka Village,
G. T. B. Nagar, Delhi-110009
Respondent : Mr. Lal Singh,
The P.I.O. & ADM (NW)
Revenue Department, GNCTD
Office of the Dy. Commissioner (NW)
Kanjhawala, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 24/11/2010
PIO replied : -------------
First appeal filed on : 07/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 10/02/2011
Second Appeal received on : 25/02/2011
Information sought by the appellant:
Information is required regarding “Possession taking over report, dt. 6th May 1997 in respect of lands
acquired vide Award No. 69/82-83 of village – Dhirpur wherein, permission has been granted for 15 days
for cutting the standing crops on the said land. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure -A for its solid
proof.
Thus, the said possession report is vague and incorrect in the light of flouting rules framed by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in regard to Execution of Decrees for The Delivery Of Immovable Property as
appeared vide Part-G, Page No — 66-67 of Delhi High Court Rules which states the steps, under
Order XXI, Rules 35 and 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the case of the delivery of
immovable property.
In the said Hon’ble High Courts Rules, it has been directed that ” if however, no date is specified in either
the decree or the order, and the land of which possession is to be delivered is in the cultivating
possession of the judgment — debtor, the collector should at once refer to the Civil Court for
instructions as to whether or not he is to delay execution of the decree, until any crop which may have
been sown by the Judgment–debtor and is standing on the and, has been removed” Copy of the same
is annexed as Annexure — B for ready reference.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied.
Order of the FAA:
“You are hereby informed that the aforesaid appeal is rejected under section 19 (of Right to Information
Act, 2005 being barred by time.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The appellant is unsatisfied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Lalit Kumar, Reader to ADM (NW) on behalf of Mr. Lal Singh, P.I.O. & ADM (NW);
The respondent states that the information has been sent to the Appellant on 24/12/2010 stating “No
specific information has been asked by the RTI application. There being no scope to given interpretations
judgments which are under the purview of the competent authority prescribed. As a consequence
statement/opinion/remarks/interpretations as made in the application are not be given as per the RTI
Act.” However, he has not brought any proof to show that the infroamtion was posted to the Appellant
with any speed post receipt.
The Commission accepts that the appellant had not sought any information and hence the reply of the PIO
is appropriate.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the information to the Appellant which is claimed to
have been sent earlier before 30 May 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is 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 PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 02 June 2011 at 03.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
18 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)