Beyond Official Jurisdiction: CIC Clarifies RTI Limitations for Transferred Land Records

In a recent decision that reinforces the jurisdictional boundaries of public authorities, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed an appeal filed by an applicant seeking historical plot allotment and measurement records for Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tila. Information Commissioner Sanjeev Kumar Jindal ruled that the Land and Development Office (L&DO) cannot be held accountable for information pertaining to land that was formally transferred to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

The Genesis of the Dispute

The appellant, Vikas, sought detailed information regarding the layout plans, allotment measurements, and historical construction data for "Block A to P" in Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi. His RTI application, filed in July 2024, requested specific documentation for properties in the area, including house-specific measurement statuses.

Upon receiving a response from the L&DO that the records were held by the MCD, the applicant filed a first appeal and subsequently reached the Commission, arguing that the information provided was incomplete.

The Argument for Administrative Responsibility

The respondent, represented by the L&DO CPIO, maintained that the requested information did not reside within their office. They clarified that the land in question, totaling 20.760 acres, had been under the administrative control of the MCD for years. Specifically, 13.7 acres were transferred to the erstwhile Delhi Municipal Committee through a specific departmental file, while the remaining 7.06 acres fell under the MCD's physical possession and management.

The L&DO argued that because the records—including layout plans and allotment details—are maintained by the agency actually governing the land, the CPIO had correctly directed the appellant to the competent authority (MCD) to obtain the files.

Key Observations: Legal Boundaries of Disclosure

The Commission’s decision emphasized the necessity of directing RTI requests to the correct custodian of information. Commissioner Sanjeev Kumar Jindal highlighted the following points:

• The Custody Principle: "The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the Appellant substantially pertains to the records maintained by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), which is a separate public authority under the RTI Act."
• Sufficiency of Response: "The Commission also notes that the Respondent CPIO has clarified the position in the reply dated 12.08.2024 based on the records available with the public authority."
• Procedural Due Diligence: The Commission further noted that the appellant had failed to appear at the hearing despite proper notification, indicating a lack of interest in the proceedings.

The Commission’s Decision: A Call for Jurisdictional Accuracy

In its final ruling, the CIC underscored that the L&DO had acted within the spirit of the RTI Act by providing a point-wise response and guiding the appellant to the correct authority. The Commission held that since the MCD functions as an independent public authority with its own record-keeping mandate, the L&DO could not be compelled to produce documents it does not possess.

The appeal was effectively dismissed, with the Commission maintaining that no further intervention was necessary given that the CPIO had provided all information available within their department’s records. This ruling serves as a reminder to citizens that while the Right to Information is broad, it is fundamentally tethered to the "custody" or "control" of the specific public authority being queried. Future applicants are reminded to identify the primary administrator of land-related records before approaching the L&DO to ensure their requests reach the appropriate desk.