INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2 Theagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Tel: 24347590

Date of Enquiry :02.11.2016

Present :

Thiru K. RAMANUJAM, I.P.S .,(Retd.) State Chief Information Commissioner.

Case No.SA-10441 / 2015

Thiru R. Rangarajan, 4/735, Mangalam Nagar, Baburajapuram (Post), ….. APPELLANT Swamimalai (via), – 612 302. .

The Public Information Officer/ The Headquarters Dy. Tahsildar, …. PUBLIC AUTHORITY Kumbakonam Taluk Office , Kumbakonam – 612 001. District.

ORDER

The Petitioner Thiru R. Rangarajan, has not appeared for today’s (02.11.2016) enquiry. The Public Authority is represented by Thiru D. Madhusudhanan, Public Information Officer / Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kumbakonam Taluk Office, . 2. The appellant has sent his petition seeking information under RTI to the Village Administrative Officer, Innambur and sent an appeal to the Office of the District Collector, Thanjavur. The Village Administrative Officer sent a communication to the petitioner asking him to send a petition to the Taluk Office to obtain information. The petitioner again sent a letter to the Village Administrative Officer pointing out that the petition should have been forwarded to Taluk Office under section 6(3)(ii) of the Act. In the mean time, the Public Information Officer, Office of the District Collector has forwarded his petition under 6(3) of the Act to the Public Information Officer, Ta luk Office, Kumbakonam for taking necessary action.

3. The Public Information Officer has sent a reply dated 06.05.2015 to the petitioner stating that the information sought for by the petitioner relates to third party and hence information could not be furnished.

4. The petitioner has sent a letter stating that he requires 4 months time to make train reservation and further he has to visit Ahmadabad and will return on 13.02.2017 and that the enquiry may be adjourned to 2.30 pm on 15.02.2017. The Commission sees no reason to adjourn the case by more than 3 months, especially when the Public Information Officer is present.

5. In the petition under RTI, information about houses or house sites in 9 survey numbers has been sought including details of previous owners, buyers, registration details etc.

6. The petitioner ought to have addressed the petition to the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar Kumbakonam who is the public information officer instead of sending the petition to the Village Administrative Officer. The information seeker is also expected to exercise due diligence by filing the petition before the public information officer of the concerned Public Authority , as pointed out by a Three Member Bench of the Central Information Commission in the case of Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs CBEC. At the same time, the Village Administrative Officer who received the petitio n could have forwarded the petition to the Deputy Tahsildar who is the public information officer instead of sending a reply asking the petitioner to get the information from the Taluk office.

7. According to the public information officer who has appeared today for enquiry, information is available with the Taluk office about the name of the owner of the land and the patta number . According to the revenue records change of ownership has been recorded only in respect of three survey numbers as seen in the village records. These 3 survey numbers are 265/9 , and 265/41 (originally in the name of Pichaiammal @ Alamelu Ammal with patta No.21 transferred to Seshadri vide patta transfer No.2/793/2000-01 dated 5.9.2001) and 265/ 40 (originally in the name of Padma with patta No. 463 transferred to Aaravamudhan vide the patta transfer file No. 4029/2011 dated 30.11.2011). The public information officer further states that the proceedings issued in respect of 265/40 shows that the land was acquired by Aaravamuthan by means of a will.

8. In respect of 265/9 and 265/41 the patta transfer references shown in the Adangal Register relate to some other village and therefore the information recorded about change of ownership does not tally with the information contained in the corresponding file.

9. The public information officer reports that Aaravamuthan, one of those who own the lands, has given a report stating that if any third party asked for information, it should not be given.

10. This decision of the public information officer to treat this as third party information is not proper. The information about ownership is recorded in revenue records. Section 11 of the RTI Act which deals the third party inf ormation refers to information or record which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party. Details of ownership of lands as recorded in revenue records cannot be treated as information supplied by a third party and treated as confidential by the third party. Therefore, the Commission feels that information found on records in this matter should be furnished to the petitioner and there is no need to get the con sent of any third party.

11. Some of the information sought by the petitioner relates to Registration departmen t and can be obtained by getting encumbrance certificate adopting the prescribed procedure. The last question raised by the petitioner seeks to know the reason or justification for eff ecting transfer of ownership. Under RTI Act only documents held by or in the custody of the public information officer can be obtained. “The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question “why” which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information”. (W.P. No.419/2007 – Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Information Commission) 12. In the light of the above the following directions are given to the public information officer:

i. Copies of the ‘A’ registe r and Natham Adangal bearing the survey numbers mentioned in the RTI petition should be supplied to the petitioner free of cost. ii. A copy of proceedings in 2/4029/2011/A8 dt. 30.11.2011 should also be given to the petitioner. iii. The proceedings under which ownership was transferred in respect of survey numbers 265/9 and 265/41 should be traced and furnished to the petitioner.

13. The fact that there is a discrepancy between the entry in the Aa dangal and the relevant file makes i t all the more necessary that the relevant document should be traced and made available to the petitioner. It is also noted that the Public Information Officer says that the whereabouts of Seshadri whose name is shown for two Survey Numbers are not known. If necessary, the record s available in Taluk office should also be carefully verified to get the correct patta transfer order.

14. The case is adjourned to 18.11.2016 at 10.30 am for the Public Information Officer to report compliance on these matters.

sd/- (K. RAMANUJAM) STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

//By Order//

Assistant Registrar

Case No.SA-10441 / 2015 To Thiru R. Rangarajan, 4/735, Mangalam Nagar, Baburajapuram (po), Swamimalai (via), Kumbakonam – 612 302

The Public Information Officer/ The Headquarters Dy. Tahsildar, Kumbakonam Taluk Office , Kumbakonam – 612 001. Thanjavur District. .

JJ/PA 02.11.2016