Complaint No: 148/SIC/2012 Decided on :13/02/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No: 148/SIC/2012

Decided on :13/02/2014

Shri Vinayak Rama Joshi,

H.No. 108, Ward No. 6, Municipal

No. 6/87, Marutigad Mala,

Panaji – Goa. 403 001. ---- Complainant

V/s

1) Dy. Collector & SDO North,

Panaji- Goa.

2) Secretary, Marutirai Devasthan,

Mahajan Mandal Committee,

Marutigad Mala Panaji. --- Opponent

O R D E R

RTI application filed on : 15/10/2012

PIO replied : Nil

First Appeal filed on : Nil

First Appellate Authority Order in : Nil

Complaint filed on : 16/11/2012

O R D E R

1) This complaint arises out of RTI application dated 15/10/2012 made to PIO and Dy. Collector North, Panaji.

2) This case was argued before me on 28/12/2013, 10/02/2014 and 13/02/2014,

when both the Complainant and Dy.Collector Sanjeev Desai provided the background. The Complainant and his four fathers had certain Land and House in their possession. The ownership rights were unclear as the land was adjoining the Maruti Devasthan. A case therefore was taken up in the Revenue Court of Deputy Collector and SDO Panaji by Case No. LND/ENC16/99-1174, in which the STATE was the first party and present Complainant Vinayak Rama Joshi was the Respondent. The questions was whether the Respondent “has encroached upon government land under Chalta No. 12, P.T. Sheet no. 92 at Marutigad, Mala, Panaji, admeasuring 512 05.24 sq mts, further alleging that the respondent is an unauthorized occupant, and that therefore he should show cause why he should not be directed to vacate the said land by 4.11.1999”.

3) The respondent had filed his reply thereto as under:-

“There is a residential house in the property surveyed under no. 12. P.T.

2/-

-2-

Sheet no. 92 which belongs to the respondent. The said residential house was

constructed by the father of the respondent late Shri. Rama Keshav Joshi in the year, 1934. Apart from the residential house, there is a swell on the Eastern side of the said residential house also located in the Chalta no. 12 P.T. Sheet no. 92 which was constructed by respondents my late father at the time he constructed the residential house. The house and the well were in exclusive possession of respondent’ father till is death which occurred in the year, 1985, and the same has continued to be in possession of the respondent and enjoyment till date. The house

has been assessed to house tax in the Municipal Records in the name of the respondent’s father right since the inception of House Tax i.e. in the year, 1976.

The said house has been repaired and reconstructed by respondent’s father during his life time.

The respondent therefore submits that, in-view of his continuous occupancy of the house for a period of over 60 years, he has become the absolute owner of the said property covered by residential house and the well situated in the said house.

The respondent submits that there is no legal hurdle in the matter of grant of said land to the respondent. He fulfils all the requirements as laid down under the Land Revenue Code, and having due regard to the fact that the house has been in existence for last more than 60 years, the said land is liable to be granted to the respondent on appropriate terms”.

4) It was then ordered by the Presiding Officer that the ownership lies with the Government. The order dated 10^th day of July 1992 is filed before me and reads as below:

“Respondent present. Argued that he ably occupies the house in chalta no. 12 of P.T. sheet no. 92 having area of 524 sq mts. and has applied for allotment of the said area, as the title is not disputed. The area of 524 sq. mts. having chalta no. 12 of P.T. sheet No. 2 is hereby confirmed in the name of the Government.

Announced in the Open Court. Given under my hand and the seal of this court this 10^th day of July 1992”.

5) It is important to note that the said order of the Dy. Collector does not speak about the fact of possession of the said property by the present complainant nor does deny it. The complaint has filed a document dated 28/05/1987 which is a copy

of the Inquiry Register (Form B) maintained by the city survey Panaji whose centre column No. 4 gives details of any other person having any claim on the land, to

3/-

-3-

whom notice must be issued. As against this column, the name of father of the present complaint appears. Thus their stake in the property is apparent, further

confirmed by the fact that he was summoned for enquiry by Dy. Collector in 1992. Thus in other encumbrance column, name of Shri Rama Keshav Joshi remains appearing between 1987 to 1992. The Dy. Collector enquiring in 1992 has not evicted him. It is not disputed that he is not the owner of the land. However the fact that he was in physical possession of the land is also not disputed.

6) It was stated orally by Complainant that he has been making applications from time to time to the office of Dy. Collector to regularize his case. He was attaching a copy of form B and Dy. Collector’s judgement as evidence of his possession.

7) Against this background we come to the RTI application dated. 15/10/2012. He has asked question No. 1 seeking information about the service rendered.

a) Information about the service rendered by my father late Shri Rama Keshav Joshi as Pujari in Marutirai Saunsthan, Marutigad, Mala Panaji from 1932 to 1985 & salary p.m paid to him by the said Devasthan, pension given if any etc.

He has asked question no. 2, challenging the steps of Devasthan.

b) Whether the Secretary of Marutirai Saunsthan, Devasthan Committee is empowered to file a suit against me in respect of my residential house in Govt. Land bearing Chalta No. 12, P.T. sheet No. 92 admeasuring 524 mt. sq which was applied for allotment to him by my father late Shri Rama Keshav Joshi to Collector of Goa in August 1968.

8) This application was transferred under sec 6(3) to the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi. The case of the complaint is that information was not provided within the time. A reply has been filed by the office of the Dy. Collector and SDO Panaji on 18/11/2013, stating that the Complaint may be dismissed because the remedy of the first appeal has not been persued. This plea is however dismissed because the PIO (Mamlatdar or Dy. Collector) has not been able to show any information given by them which remains their first and prime responsibility.

9) Four additional points are important to note.

I) The Maruti Devasthan filed an application before the Dy. Collector stating that the present complainant has wrongly claimed encroachment and

possession in the said property and has wrongly requested for its regularization.

4/-

-4-

II) The very fact that an officer of the rank of the Dy. Collector made inquiry of the said property in 1992 in which the present Complainant had put forward his claim of occupancy also supported the record of the City Survey Officer, shows that the record of his encumbrance on land cannot be deleted without proper procedure.

III) The present Complainant has been, from time to time making request to the office of Dy. Collector for regularization of the land possessed by him and the Dy. Collector Office has not taken any action on the said applications. If his possession is not to be regularized then there should have been eviction procedure. Conversely, if he is not to be evicted then it is just and fair to regularize his possession from many decades.

IV) However his name cannot be taken out from “other encumbrance column without completing eviction procedure. If the current record does not show his name, he is entitled to ask for correction.

10) All the above, was explained to the Complainant as well as PIO during 3-4 hearings that took place.

11) I consider it necessary to put this background on record to ensure that the right of Complainant is not abrogated without due procedure of law. Similarly if it looks logical to sympathetically consider his request for regularization then the same may be considered.

12) Against all this background the present Complainant has made a submission on 13/02/2014 that the Office of the Dy. Collector has forwarded his request for regularization to the higher authority. Hence he prefers to withdraw the present Complaint application.

In view of above Complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. Declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Panaji – Goa.