##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2025/100478

T Sundararajan ….अपीलकता(cid:330) /Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

The CPIO ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent

Cantonment Board,

St Thomas Mount, North Parade Road,

Chennai- 600016

Date of Hearing : 29.06.2026

Date of Decision : 06.07.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal:

RTI application filed on : 16.08.2024

CPIO replied on : 15.02.2025

First appeal filed on : 22.09.2024

First Appellate Authority’s : 25.02.2025; 20.05.2025

order

Second Appeal dated : 29.01.2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application on 16.08.2024 seeking the

following information :

“Sub: Request for pertain information under the regarding the RTI Act

2005-reg.

Page 1 of 6

1 / 7

I request you kindly to furnish the details about the land under survey

No37 owned by Sri Kappusamy Pillai in No 6 Karayar Koil Street, St

Thomas Mount Chennai-16

1) Please give me GLRS No of this land under survey No 37, owned by Sri

Kappusami Pillai.

2) Please give me length and breadth and the area of this land.

3) Please give me the boundaries of this land.

4) What is the classification of this land.

5) Please give the details the Building Plan Sanctioned for this land,

owned by Kappuswamy Pillai.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 15.02.2025 stating as

under:

“Sub : Information under RTI Act, 2005 - Reg.

Ref : Your RTI Application dated 16.08.2024.

The information requested vide your letter under reference is furnished

below :-

1) The correspondence GLRS No. in RS No.37 is GLRS No.256/517.

2) The requisite information is not available in Cantonment Board, you

are informed to approach State Government Revenue Authorities for

the requisite details.

3) Please refer the information furnished in para No.2 above.

4) The said land is classified as "B2".

5) Please furnish the precised requisite details to furnish the same.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 22.09.2024.

4. The FAA vide its order on 25.02.2025 replied to appellant stating as

under:

“Sub : Information under RTI Act, 2005 - Reg.

Ref : i) Your RTI Application dated 16.08.2024.

ii) Your RTI Appeal dated 22.09.2024.

2) With reference to the RTI Appeal cited at reference (ii) above, it is

intimated that the reply was given by Cantonment Board vide letter

dated 20.02.2025 for your RTI Application dated 16.08.2024 (copy

enclosed).”

Page 2 of 6

2 / 7

The FAA, vide its order on 20.05.2025 further replied to appellant stating

as under:

“Sub : Information under RTI Act, 2005 - Reg.

Ref : i) Your RTI Application dated 16.08.2024.

ii) This office letter No.STM/Works/RTI/0372 dated 29.02.2025.

ii) Your RTI Appeal dated 10.03.2025.

2) According to the GLRS extract, the requisite information for the land

is as follows: the land bearing GLRS No.256/517 with corresponding

RS No.37 is classified as B2 land to an extent of 1.5800 Acres as per

the record available in this office.

3) With regarding to the adjoining RS.No owned by Mr.Kuppusamy

Pillai. The requisite information is not available with this office and

you are requested to approach the State Government Revenue

department for the same.”

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the

Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Mr. T Sundararajan

Respondent: Mr. Kamla Karan, Office Supdt. & CPIO, Cantonment board,

Chennai

6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that after receiving no point-wise

reply from the CPIO, he filed a first appeal on 22.09.2024 before the

Chief Executive Officer. He brought to the notice of the Commission that

from the submission of his first appeal, the CPIO failed to provide any

correct, relevant disclosures. Further, this persistent non-responsiveness

the appellant requested the Commission to accept his second appeal

and to issue di