CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000484/12173Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000484
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Anita Singh
9434/C9 Vasant Kunj
New Delhi- 110070.
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
O/o Sub- Registrar- II (A), GNCTD,
Sub- District: Punjabi Bagh,
Nangloi, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 30/11/2010
PIO replied : 23/10/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 25/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 22/02/2011
Information sought by the appellant:
1. This case pertains to the property House No. 37 Street no. 2, Punjabi Bagh (East), New
Delhi which was purchased by appellant’s father late Ch. Mehar Singh Rathee S/o late
Ch. Garib Ram Rathee on 10th of August 1970 at Delhi. The Sale Deed was executed and
registered in the Office of The Sub Registrar Delhi at no. 167/ Book No.1, vol. No. 1031
and page 108 to 111.
2. My father had four children:
i. Vijay Rathee — Son
ii. Raj Bala Bisla — Daughter — Married
iii. Vinay Rathee — Son
iv. Anita Singh — appellant — Daughter – Married
3. As a legal heir to appellant’s fathers above mentioned property had sought information
regarding the Title Deed and other relevant papers from the Sub Registrars Office — II,
District West, Delhi as I have reasons to believe that some wrong has been done with the
papers and the Title Deed relating to this property.
4. I had gone and contacted the office of The Sub Registrar — II (West) situated at
Nangloi on 27.12.2010 to inspect the records.
5. All the details required, which were asked, were furnished and all the payments meant
for the purpose were made there by appellant.
6. Sir, the Dealing Person at the computer at the Sub — Registrars Office told me that the
said property is not in the name of Ch. Mehar Singh Rathee and therefore no record can
be shown / furnished. He further told that the record of the year 2007 is not on his
computer and he is busy and became rude.
7. The appellant went to Sub-Registrars Office at Janak Puri, New Delhi too and paid the
relevant fee there also. Appellant was able to inspect the provided records there
manually. The records available there are up till the year 2005 and not after that.
8. The Appellant has enclosed the copies of all the relevant documents for ready
reference.
9. Sir, Appellant helps to get all the relevant papers and the present status of the above
mentioned property of my father.
PIO Reply:
Serial Information Sought by RTI PIO Reply
No.
1. The Name of the Title Deed The said information can be provided only if
holder in regard to property, the Registration No., Volume No, date of
Ho.No.37/2, Punjabi Bagh, registration is provided by the appellant.
New Delhi.
2. Appellant are requested to The said information can be provided only if
provide her a copy of the the registration No., volume No., date of
aforesaid title deed along registration is provided by the applicant, Still
with all other relevant you are advised to inspect the records of this
documents. office (available from 2005 onwards) to
ascertain the facts.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied.
Order of the FAA:
During the hearing the appellant gave registration number and other details to the PIO
and the FAA ordered:
“In view of the above, the PIO is directed to furnish the information with regard to the
title deed holder of the property No. 37/2, Punjabi Bagh and also provide her the copy of
the title deed to the appellant within a period of 15 days of the receipt of these orders, as
per rules.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Appellant did not receive any information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on April 28, 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mrs. Anita Singh;
Respondent: Absent
“The Appellant has been given certain information after the order of the FAA, which she
states is incomplete. She wants to inspect the records in the registers and on the
computers for the period 2005 onwards.”
Decision dated April 28, 2011:
“The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant
records in the registers and on the computers for the period 2005 onwards to the
Appellant on May 18, 2011 and May 19, 2011. He will also provide attested photocopies
of any records that the Appellant wants free of cost up to 50 pages.”
Facts leading to non- compliance hearing held on July 11, 2011:
The Commission received a letter on 23/05/2011 from the Appellant stating that she
visited the PIO’s office on 18/05/2011 and some records were shown to her on computer
but she was not able to understand the same. Then she requested to inspect the records of
2007 available on register but the official refused the same mentioning that they don’t
maintain any records on the register at all. In view of this, the Commission, vide notice
dated 17/06/2011, decided to schedule a hearing in this matter on 11/07/2011 to decide
whether there has been non-compliance of the order of the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on July 11, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. Anita Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar, UDC on behalf of Mr. Ved Prakash, PIO & Sub-
Registrar- II.
The Appellant has done a inspection on the computer but states that it is not possible for
her to understand clearly the key information she is looking for. The Appellant wants
information on whether any transaction has occurred with respect to 37/2, East Punjabi
Bagh from 2005 onwards. If any transaction has been done or any change has occurred in
the ownership of this property, the PIO will give the print outs of the changes occurred.
In case no change has occurred in the ownership of this property during this period, this
shall be stated.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before
30 July 2011.
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
July 11, 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)
