CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00159/2835Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/00159
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Vijay Kumar,
R/o Y-2234, Mangol Puri,
New Delhi.
Respondents : 1. Mr. B.P. Mishra
Tehsildar (PB)
Office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Punjabi Bagh, Main Rohtak Road
Nangloi, Delhi 110041
2. Dy. Director (LM) WZ
Delhi Development Authority
Lands Management (WZ)
Subhash Nagar, Delhi 110018
3. Asst. Commissioner (WZ) & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
West Zone, School Building
Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi 110027
4. ADM(West) & PIO
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old School Complex
Lawrance Road, Ram Pura
New Delhi 110035
5. Secretary & PIO
Public Works Dept, GNCTD
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi 110002
RTI application filed on : 24/08/2007
PIO MCD transferred to PWD : 18/01/2008
PWD APIO (P.R.Kaushik Transferred to E-in-C, PWD : 06/02/2008
B.B. Popli Director (Maintainence) Transferred to S.E. cum PIO : 21/02/2008
Asst. Engineer (P) transferred To EE-CRMD M-311,312 & 313 : 27/03/2008
M-311 informed that information does not relate to him : 02/4/2008
M-312 informed that information does not relate to him : 14/05/2008
First Appeal filed with MCD on : 22/01/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 07/03/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 19/11/2008.
Detail of required information:-
The Appellant had asked following question regarding Encroachment of public land under the RTI
Act, 2005:-
1. Whether any action has been taken to remove the illegal encroachment of and by
Jyotish Karyalay at the T-point of Rohtak Road and Shiv Mandir Road, Madipur, New
Delh-63 located at the north-east corner of the boundary wall of DDA SFS Flats
(Punjabi Bagh Apartments), Opposite Arihant Nagar, New Delhi-63, and to reclaim the
public land on which the encroachment is constructed.
2. If any action has been taken to remove the said illegal encroachment, the same may
please be intimated.
3. If no action has been taken so far, the reason thereof may be informed.
4. It may also be intimated as to when the action to remove the illegal encroachment and
reclaiming the public land will be taken.
PIO replied.
PIO replied that "It is to inform you that the matter pertains to PWD Deptt. The copy of
the same has been sent to the Secy/PWD for sending information directly to the applicant under
intimation to this office."
.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
First Appellate Authority ordered “The matter pertains to the PWD and the application has
already been sent to Secretary (PWD), the appellant has been asked to approach the concerned
department for seeking information.”
The RTI application has been shunted around and the only information that was provided was by
Executive Engineer Fly Over Project Division F-133, PWD (NCTD), Nangloi, Delhi 41 on
1/7/2008 stating, “It is intimated that though the above mentioned property appears to be
constructed illegally on public land however the said property holder has produced some
documents in support of his claim for the land. The documents produced by him are being sent to
the Revenue dept. to check the authenticity of the documents, in case the encroachment is proved
the same will be removed.” This was sent to SDM Punjabi Bagh, Nangloi, New Delhi.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 21/04/2009:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr.Vijay Kumar
Respondent : Mr. Ashish SDM Punjabi Bagh
Mr. V.P.Mishra Tehsildar Punjabi Bagh
Mr. R. P. Sharma Deputy Secretary PWD
Mr. M. S. Agarwal DDA
The Commission had observed that this was a classic case of how there was an absolute vacuum
with respect to knowledge or willingness to identify responsibility for illegal encroachments.
Various departments have gone around stating that they feel it is an illegal encroachment but
cannot make any comment. The respondents from land revenue state that DDA should have the
records, whereas the DDA representative states that this information is with the Revenue
department. The appellant is left wondering whether there is any governance structure at all.
The Commission gave the following directions:
1. The Executive Engineer, Fly Over Project Division F-133, PWD (NCTD), Nangloi, Delhi
41 will send copies of the documents produced by the land holder -which he has mentioned
in his letter of 1/7/2008,- to the appellant and the Commission before 30 April 2009.
2. Mr. M.S.Agarwal of DDA will give a copy of the layout plan superimposed on the Sizra to
the Mr. V.P.Mishra Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh. Mr. M.S.Agarwal and Mr. V.P.Mishra will
give a joint report explaining whether the charge of encroachment is true and identify who
has the information. This report will be sent to the appellant and the Commission before 5
May 2009.
Mr. M.S. Agarwal showed some notings from a file which seem to indicate that the land belongs to
DDA and there is an illegal encroachment. A photocopy of the file is being given to the appellant,
Mr. Mishra and the Commission.
Decision dated 21/04/2009:
The appeal was allowed. The Commission directed that the report of Mr. Mishra and Mr. Agarwal
would be sent to the appellant and the commission before 5 May 2009. The Executive Engineer,
Fly Over Project would send the documents mentioned above to the appellant and the Commission
before 30 April 2009.
Brief facts leading to the inquiry on 15/09/2009:
From the records on file, it appears that the report has not been received by the Commission till
date. The Appellant vide letter dated 22/06/2009 has also informed the Commission that he has not
received the report as ordered by the Commission and that the DDA and the Tehsildar are placing
the responsibility on the each other. The Tehsildar vide letter dated 04/05/2009 to the Commission
has stated that the layout plan has not been provided to him as directed by the Commission. He
was therefore unable to take any further action on this matter. During the hearing Mr. M.S.
Agarwal from the DDA showed some file notings which seemed to indicate that the land belongs
to DDA. However, the Dy. Director (LM) WZ had informed the Commission vide letter dated
04/05/2009 that the concerned property does not fall under the jurisdiction of the DDA.
As it is still not clear to which Public Authority the concerned belongs to, the Commission decided
to initiate an inquiry in this matter under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act. The Appellant and
Respondent were directed to bring with them all documents/records that may be relied on to decide
which Public Authority the concerned property belongs to. They were further directed to inform
other officials who may be better acquainted with the facts of the matter to attend the hearing.
Relevant facts arising during the inquiry held on 15/09/2009:
The following persons were present:
Appellant:
Respondent: Mr. AK Gupta, EE, PWD; Mr. Ashish, SDM, Punjabi Bagh; Mr. Chandrama Shah,
Dy. Dir, LM West Zone DDA; Mr. MS Agarwal, Asst. Director LM West Zone DDA; Mr. Ajay
Gautam, EE, MCD, West Zone.
A total of nine officers from various departments have come to the Commission for this hearing.
They universally proclaim that none of them knows anything about this plot. Hearing this
statement Mr. AK Gupta, EE PWD states that he is aware that it is encroached but is unable to get
any help from the other departments in terms of information to prove the encroachment. Mr.
Ashish, SDM, PB states that for the want of layout plan the identification is held up. Mr. Ashish
states that if the layout plan is provided, he would be able to give the information whether it is an
encroachment or not within a day. Mr. Ajay Gautam states that it is in the right of way of the PWD
and MCD has nothing to do with. Mr. Chandrama Shah, DDA states that the layout plan would be
available with DDA Planning.
The Commission is aghast at the complete absence of any coordination amongst various
government officers even when a citizen points out an encroachment. This method of complete
non-cooperation and refusal to give each other adequate information shows the reason why
encroachers and illegal activities can thrive and the government is unable to deliver the most basic
requirements.
The Commission tried to locate the name of the responsible person for the Planning Department
and discovered that DDA has not met its Section 4 requirements on the website.
Decision:
The Commission therefore orders the Commissioner, Planning Mr. Alok Kumar to send the layout
plan of this area to Mr. Ashish, SDM, PB before 23 September 2009. Mr. Ashish will then ensure
that the information is sent to the Appellant within seven days of receiving the layout plan. Mr.
Ashish will send a compliance report to the Commission before 10 October 2009 and inform the
EE, PWD.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)