RTI Judgement Series: Govt of NCT Delhi takes away land but fails to maintain transparency about alternative allotments

Moneylife Digital Team 09 April 2013

The government took away land from ordinary citizens and had no mechanism to give alternate plots to these persons in a time-bound and transparent manner that may have given rise to institutionalized corruption, the CIC noted. This is the 70th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while disposing an appeal directed the principal secretary of Land and Building Department at the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to publish whatever data was available on the allotment of alternate plots to citizens whose lands have been forcibly acquired by the government.

While giving this important judgement on 31 January 2011, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “If the government is sincere it is not very difficult to ensure that the seniority list for all those who are eligible for alternate plots can be made in a three-month period.”

Pochanpur (New Delhi) resident Ramesh Chand, on 12 October 2010, sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Land and Building Department, GNCTD. He sought information about seniority list for alternative plots to be given to him. Here is the information he sought...

1. Mention the post of officers who are a part of the board who sanction alternate plots.

2. Specify as to how many meetings are held of this board in a year along with the names of those months.

3. Provide details regarding the meetings in the year 2000 and the number of meetings so held along with the certified photocopy received by public authority.

4. Provide details of the certified files those are to be kept in the board meeting along with list of all the names and personal details of all.

5. Mention about the next meeting of the board and when it would be held.

In his reply, the PIO stated “The response to point 1 is that the copy of the latest order dated 22 December 2009 vide which the committee constituted for recommendation of alternative plot is enclosed herewith. In response to 2nd point no schedule is fixed. In response to 3rd and 4th the information sought are not available in the compiled form thus requested to visit this office within 15 days of issue of this letter and inspect available records. And to the last point, no time frame is fixed yet.”

Ramesh Chand, citing incomplete information received from the PIO then filed his first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) while rejecting the appeal stated that “The PIO replied as contended by the appellant to part 3,4 and 5, that the provision does not exist in the RTI act for creation of record whereas the question put forth creation of records instead of reference to existing ones hence reply is appropriate.”

Not satisfied with the replies given by both the PIO and the FAA, the applicant then approached the CIC with his second appeal.

During the hearing, Chand said he wanted a seniority list for the alternative plots to be given to him by the GNCTD. The PIO admitted that the land was acquired in 1986 and alternative plots have not been provided so far. “There is no seniority list also for allotment of alternate plots and some persons have already been given alternate plots,” he said.

Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that the government had taken land from citizens and has given alternate plots in an arbitrary and random manner three years back.

The PIO further stated that, “The respondent states that no fresh plots have allotment by the Department in last three years and the Department in its leisurely, laggard way is preparing a seniority list.”

However, he stated that he could not guarantee when the said seniority list would be available.

“A government which takes away land way from ordinary citizens and has no mechanism to give alternate plots to these persons in a time-bound and transparent manner gives rise to institutionalized corruption,” Mr Gandhi noted.

The PIO stated that the number of claims of such plots was likely to be around 10,000. Ramesh Chand told the Commission that he had been approached by touts who told him that he would be able to get an alternate plot if he pays a bribe.

Mr Gandhi noted that if the government was sincere, it was not very difficult to ensure that the seniority list for all those who are eligible for alternate plots can be made in a three-month period.

He then directed the principal secretary of Land and Building Department to put up whatever data was available on the website as soon as possible.

While disposing the appeal, the Commission said, “The principal secretary of Land and Building Department is directed to put up whatever data is available on the allotment of alternate plots to citizens whose lands have been forcibly acquired by the government on the website before 1 May 2011. He will send a compliance report to the Commission before 1 May 2011.”

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003551/11186

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_003551_11186_M_51060.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003551

Appellant : Ramesh Chand

Village Pochanpur,

New Delhi

Respondent : Alok Sharma

Public Information Officer &

Dy. Secretary ( Alt.)

Land and Building Department

Govt of NCT Delhi, Vikas Bhawan,