Date of Hearing : 29.08.2018
Date of Decision : 25.09.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Jeet Singh
Respondent : PIO/ Dy. Land & Development Officer, Land & Development
Office (Ministry of Urban
Development)
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.03.2017 PIO replied on : 10.04.2017 First Appeal filed on : 12.05.2017 First Appellate Order on : 20.06.2017 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 13.07.2018
Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 06.03.2017, the appellant sought information regarding a perpetual lease of Sujan Singh Park Executed in the Name of Late Mr. Sobha Singh. In this regard, he sought following information:-
1. Has anyone applied to make amendment/change the name of lease holder title.
2. Is establishment i.e. (Lease Holder) is under default in payment of DUES.
3. Status as on date for the above mentioned query. Shri Abhishek Biswas, CPIO & Dy. Land & Development Officer vide letter dated 10.04.2016 stated as follows:-
"It is to inform that information/details relating to the property are personal information of the recorded lesses/owners and disclosure of which will not serve any larger public interest. However, if appellant is having any stake in the property, necessary documents may be submitted to prove your stake along-with exact number of the property for which information is required."
1
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.05.2017. Shri Anand Mohan, FAA & Land & Development Officer vide order dated 20.06.2017 denied the information under section 8(1)(j). Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present and heard at length. The counsel of appellant states that information regarding leaseholders residing at Sujan Singh Park as executed in the name of Late Mr. Sobha Singh has been denied on the grounds that the same would not serve any larger public interest. Upon being asked as to what stake the applicant had in the said property; he states that applicant and members of his family are in occupation of quarters No. K2 and K7 alongwith other tenants. The grievance of appellant and few others is that the original lessee has filed an eviction proceeding against the tenants on the plea that premises needed maintenance. The lease was granted in 1945 and the lessee is paying lease rent. The counsel further states that as per the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, after the death of original tenant, members of the deceased tenant's family acquire tenancy rights. Per contra, the respondent submits that the background of the case as narrated in course of hearing was never brought to their attention. It is submitted by the respondent that the appellant never proved his interest in the property and hence, the request for information was denied.
Decision:
It seems that the appellant was inducted in the premises under an understanding of subletting with the original lessee. In such circumstances, the appellant is not a stranger and has a rightful claim to access information as regards the status of conversion of property (leasehold to freehold) and statement of outstanding ground rent till date. The Commission is not deciding any questions of fact but only the question of disclosability of information sought.
Ownership and maintenance of pre independence era properties is vested with M/o L&DO. Conferment of lease rights by a civil body on a nominal rent is akin to state largesse and not part of it qualifies as personal information. Ideally, such species of information must be readily placed in public domain. Name of lessee, description & area of property leased, ground rent fixed, category of allotment, status of conversion (if done) etc. must be placed in public domain.
2
The Commission therefore directs the PIO to furnish information as sought by the appellant after verification of his actual physical possession of the premises in question. Needful shall be done within 3 weeks of receipt of this order under intimation of compliance to the Commission. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer
3