Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2007/00003
Dated: 31 December 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Saroj Singh
S/Shri Mahabir Singh, H.No.51-A
Nangli Razapur, New Delhi – 110013
Name of the Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority
Background:
Shri Saroj Singh of New Delhi had filed an RTI-application with the PIO, Delhi
Development Authority, on 22 September 2006, seeking information regarding the
property mortgaged on 15 June 1946 vide mutation No.181, Nangli Razapur, due to
some guarantee in favour of DDA. In this connection, the Appellant sent six letters to
the DDA but without any response. Not getting any reply within the stipulated period
of 30 days, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 20
November 2006. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Central Information
Commission with a second appeal on 3 January 2007.
2. The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter
on 17 May 2007.
3. In its Order dated 21 May 2007, the Commission had noted that the first
response to the Appellant’s application dated 22 September 2006 was received by
him only vide DDA’s letter dated 7 May 2007. Having gone through the Appellant’s
application and this letter of 7 May 2007, the Commission felt that much of the
information asked for by the Appellant had not been supplied to him. Accordingly,
the Commission directed: (i) to issue a Show Cause Notice as to why penalty should
not be levied on the Respondents for the delay in response beyond the period
prescribed for reply in the RTI–Act; and (ii) to make available all the files related
with the subject of the Appellant’s query to him by 15 June 2007.
4. In case the Appellant found some lacunae in the information supplied, he
would, in the first instance, ask the Respondents to clarify the matter. The
Commission gave the Respondents 7 working days to clarify whatever doubts the
Appellant might have. In case the Appellant was still dissatisfied, he could approach
the Commission again.
5. As per the decision of the Commission, a Show Cause Notice was issued to Shri
O.P. Mishra on 26.06.2007 after verifying over phone his status as the PIO. Now, Shri
O.P. Mishra vide his letter has indicated that after inspection of the Commission’s file
he found that the information was sought from Shri S.P. Padhi, CPIO which was partly
responded by his Office, DD (Land). Therefore, he was neither the CPIO nor the
Appellate Authority nor the person concerned with the subject. Therefore, Shri
Mishra requested the Commission to call for a fresh hearing on the matter and also
suggested that all persons named in the case should also be called for the hearing.
6. In the meantime, the Appellant vide his letter dated 18 June 2007 approached
the Commission with a complaint that the Commission’s Order was not complied with
by the PIO.
7. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, fixed a second
hearing on the subject on 24 July 2007.
8. During the hearing whereas the Respondents said that they had gone through
all the Revenue records and did not find any entry regarding the land of the
Appellant, the Appellant felt that in case the entry was not there in the Revenue
records there may be a possibility of finding an entry relevant to the cash transaction
for the plot concerned. The respondents agreed to extend their help and make a
search in the records pertaining to the cash transactions of the years 1945 onwards.
This was to be done by 31 August 2007. In case there was no entry in the cash
transaction also, the Commission suggested to the Organization to think of alternative
methods to sort out the issue.
9. The Appellant approached the Commission with a non-compliance of the
Commission orders. The case was fixed for the hearing on 16 December 2008.
10. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter
on 16 December 2008.
11. Shri G.C. Suman, DD (Land), Shri B.S. Jain and Shri Ranbir Singh, represented
the Respondents.
12. The Appellant, Shri Saroj Singh, was present at the hearing.
Decision:
13. The Commission heard both the sides in what was a third hearing in the case.
14. The Respondents replied that they had checked the records and did not find
any entry regarding the land of the Appellant. During the hearing held on 31 July
2007, the Appellant felt that in case the entry was not there in the revenue records,
there was a possibility of finding an entry relevant to the cash transaction for the
plot concerned. The Respondents had agreed to extend their help and make a search
in the records pertaining to the cash transactions of the years 1945 onwards. In
today’s hearing, they confirmed that this record was indeed available in the SDM’s
office. If it is, the Commission finds it surprising that they made a submission to the
Bench today that they could not get the records from the SDM’s office. The
Commission feels that its earlier Order was to get the information from wherever it
was and be supplied to the Appellant. Now, it directs the Respondents to collect the
relevant records from wherever they are and ensure that certified copies are given to
the Appellant by 15 January 2009.
15. The Commission ordered accordingly.
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Saroj Singh, S/o Shri Mahabir Singh, H.No.51-A, Nangil Razapur, New Delhi-
110013
2. Shri G.C. Suman, Dy. Director (Lands) & PIO, Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
3. The Appellate Authority & Director (LM), Delhi Development Authority, A-Block,
2nd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC