NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 947 of 2012

• Vidyadhar Mishra S/o Satyadeo Mishra, aged about 68 years, R/o In

front of Railway Station, Raipur, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chief Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information

Commission, Raipur (C.G.)

2. Collector Raipur, District Raipur, Cg

3. Public Information Officer, Diversion Branch District Office, Raipur, Cg

4. Officer On Special Duty, Land Diversion Office Collectorate Campus,

Raipur Cg

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent/State

Shri S. Majid Ali, PL

For Respondent No.1

Shri S.S. Lal Tekchandani, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board By

26/10/2015

1.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is

heard finally.

2.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief

Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh on 31.01.2012, whereby his

second appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

(For short ' the RTI Act') has been dismissed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had

moved an application before the Collector, Raipur on 11.02.2008 for

correction of map, however, when no steps were taken, the petitioner

moved an application under the RTI Act seeking information as to the

decision taken on his application. Instead of furnishing information

about the application, the authorities under the RTI Act proceeded

under assumption that the petitioner is seeking correction in map and

not information.

4.

The proceedings for preparation of field map is undertaken by the

Revenue authorities under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'CGLRC'). It provides that for Aabadi

area, a field map is to be prepared and in the case of any village, if it is

necessary to show separately in the map prepared, the plots occupied

by the private holders, the State Government may direct the Collector

to get the map so prepared or revised. Since preparation or revision of

map, which includes correction of map, is a quasi judicial function

under the CGLRC and the same is to be undertaken by registering a

revenue case for decision on the application after giving opportunity of

hearing to adjacent/neighbouring holders, a mere application for

correction was not sufficient unless it is presented before the

competent revenue officer in the manner required under the CGLRC. It

appears, the petitioner having moved such an application, as if it was

for an administrative decision, later on moved an application under the

RTI Act seeking information about the decision taken on his

application.

5.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Second Appellate Authority

under the RTI Act has not committed any illegality in rejecting the

application. It will not be out of place to observe that the petitioner

ought to have been taken appropriate proceeding under the CGLRC

by moving appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Revenue

Officer for correction of map.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to

institute a revenue proceeding before the Jurisdictional Revenue

Officer for correction of map under the relevant provisions of CGLRC.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Nirala