Comp 36/SIC/2012 on 14/11/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa.

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complainant No.36/SIC/2012

Decided on: 14/11/2014

Shri. Luel Fernandes,

R/o 136, Cotta,

Chandor, Salcete, Goa. ….. Complainant.

V/s

1. The Public Information Officer,

State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary Services,

Sharma Shakti Bhavan, 7^th Floor,

Patto, Panaji-Goa. …. Respondent.

J U D G M E N T

This complaint arises out of decision passed by the SCIC earlier in second appeal No. 55/SIC/2011 dated 20/12/2011.

It is therefore pertains to note following important points of that judgment.

1) In the jurisdiction of V.P. Chandor, particular partition Deed was executed on 7/2/1983, the deed contain some blank spaces were some should have been mentioned, further it reference No. 99 but the detailed of registration No. 99 pertain to another village namely councolim, consequently given reference to the some partition deed, another sale deed was also executed on 22/4/2012.

2) The complainant asked three question under RTI Act on 27/10/2010, the claim of the PIO was the said information does not for within provision of Section 2(f) and 2(j). Although the PIO has try supply some other information which at some relevant.

3) Three question asked were:

I) Sale Deed valid they being based on another deed that which is not for some information.

Cont……2

::2::

II) if it is valid deed what it is exactly conveyed.

III) The PIO and his Office will have to consequences of follow liability by registration such document.

4) In view of elaborate analysis of the situation for going paras, the Appellant is partly allowed. The PIO has to furnished information to namely of the exactly conveyed by the Sale Deed. This information should be furnish within 20 days.

The present complaint was filed 15/2/2012 against the PIO complaining that although the PIO has not sent him letter on 20/1/2012, it cannot be taken as proper reply to his question No. 2 it once again furnishes no information. The said reply stated as below:

The Sale Deed registered No. 1530 pages 283 to 298 of Book No.1, Vol No. 1330 dated 16/05/2002, clearly stated that the property which is conveyed is fully described in the Scheduled at page 11 and 12 read together with annex plan.

While filing the complaint the complainant has not filed the said copies of page 11 and 12 alongwith the plan.

During the hearing of the matter and inquiry of SIC, the PIO has submitted the reply on 18/6/2012, as below:

That your honour I Shri. R.L. Pednekar, P.I.O., O/o the State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary Services, Panaji-Goa furnish herewith the detail about the transfer/conveyed the immovable property to the buyer in the said sale deed. “Plot ‘A’ has an total area of 461 sq.mt. with common access and common portion of the house” which has been mentioned at pg. 12 of the said sale deed.”

The complaint has filed another say on 16/7/12, which has entirely opposed meaning of conveyance of 461 sq.mts. his alimentary is that the partition deed mentioned above, because the Partition Deed contained words within court become owner of the northern of plot ‘A’ and further that the plot ‘A’ itself consist of compartments of total area is only less than 70 sq. mts.

Finally, on 23/7/2014 also filed Xerox copies of Sale Deed, Partition Deed and Deed of Registration No. 99 which is not relevant to the earlier todays.

Cont……3

::3::

It is seen that the Partition Deed of 1983 is between Mr. Caetano Joao Vaz and his wife Mrs. Rosita Vaz on one part and Mr. Eugenio Vaz and his wife mrs. Leonita Vaz from the second part. The Deed between two brothers between whom the total plot admeasuring 973.90 sq.mts. and also containing the house has been partition the northern part of the house is marked ‘A’ on the map and southern part of the house is marked ‘B’. Thus house part marked ‘A’ alongwith open plot area adjoining ‘A’ on the northern side falls to the share between brother and the house part ‘B’ alongwith open plot area surrounding ‘B’ and fallen southern side of the total plot belongs to another brother. This can be seen clearly from the map attached to the document.

The PIO has explained that the Sale Deed of 2002 conveyance the plot at plot ‘A’ admeasuring 461 sq.mts. from the map attached to the Sale Deed which clear bold partition line has been drown. It can be understood that description ‘A’ does not remain confined only to the house area when the description throughout the Sale Deed house term within plot ‘A’.

Under this situation nothing g further remain explained by the PIO to which who has already stated that the Sale Deed conveyance the property describe at page 11 and 12 alognwith the attached site plan.

It may be mentioned that the complainant perhaps ignore the file that description ‘A’ has been used more specifically for the whole plot and not just portion of the house that has fallen to the northern side of the partition. 

O R D E R

The complaint is dismissed as lacking merit. Order declared in open Court.

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Panaji – Goa.