Many ordinary Indian citizens face the challenge of dealing with fraudulent or illegal documents, especially those related to property. When a conveyance deed, which is crucial for property transfer, is suspected to be bogus or illegally registered, it can create immense distress and financial loss. Fortunately, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers citizens to seek clarity and action from government departments. This article explores a case where an RTI applicant sought information about the cancellation of a purported bogus conveyance deed, highlighting how RTI can be a powerful tool in such situations.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this case, an applicant approached the Department of Revenue (DoR) with an RTI application seeking critical information. The applicant wanted to know the status of a conveyance deed that they believed to be illegal and bogus. Specifically, they inquired whether this conveyance deed had been officially cancelled from the government’s records, especially after a High Court order was issued. The initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) was that the advocate’s letter, which was supposed to contain this crucial information, had not been received, and therefore, no action could be taken. The PIO also stated that the conveyance deed, which was executed Delhi Development Authority (DDA), was not cancelled and that no relevant court order was available in their office records.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer’s (PIO) initial response indicated a lack of action due to the non-receipt of the advocate’s letter. This is a common hurdle that RTI applicants can face, where the authority claims not to have received the necessary documents or correspondence. The PIO further clarified that the conveyance deed in question had not been cancelled and that the office had no record of any court order mandating its cancellation. This response, while providing some information, left the applicant with more questions and a sense of unresolved issues, particularly concerning the alleged “bogus” nature of the deed.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter escalated to the Central Information Commission (CIC) when the applicant felt their RTI application remained inadequately answered. During the hearing, the respondent (representing the public authority) presented a different perspective. They stated that the appellant’s advocate had been previously informed that, as per the directions of the Court, the relevant court order and the office copy of the conveyance deed had been affixed to the concerned Register. The respondent explained that this was the official procedure for cancelling a conveyance deed after its registration. However, the appellant maintained that their RTI application had not received a proper or complete response, and the issue remained unresolved from their perspective.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC), after hearing both sides, recognized the need for clear and complete information to be provided to the applicant. The Commission directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to furnish the appellant with the current status of the conveyance deed. Crucially, the CIC also ordered the PIO to provide copies of the relevant pages from the Register that pertained to the conveyance deed. This order is significant because it compels the public authority to provide concrete evidence and official documentation, there transparency and accountability. It addresses the applicant’s concern about the status of the deed and the purported cancellation process.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Persistence is Key: Even if the initial response from the PIO is unsatisfactory or claims non-receipt of documents, do not give up. Escalate the matter to the First Appellate Authority and then to the CIC if necessary. This case shows that persistent follow-up can lead to a proper resolution.
- Lesson 2: Specificity Matters in RTI: While the applicant clearly stated their concern about a “bogus” conveyance deed, providing more specific details like the deed number, date of registration, and parties involved (if known) in the initial RTI application can help the PIO locate the relevant records faster.
- Lesson 3: Understand Official Procedures: The CIC hearing revealed that cancellation of a registered conveyance deed follows a specific official procedure. Understanding these procedures can help you frame your RTI questions more effectively and evaluate the responses you receive. The CIC’s direction to provide register copies underscores the importance of official documentation in proving the status of any deed.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or authority is responsible for maintaining records of conveyance deeds in your area. This could be the Sub-Registrar’s office, the Revenue Department, or a related authority.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request precisely. Mention the specific conveyance deed you are concerned about (if you have details like registration number, date, parties involved). Clearly ask for information regarding its status, any cancellation proceedings, and relevant court orders or official directives.
- Mention the High Court Order (if applicable): If a High Court order is relevant, mention it in your application, as it might prompt the authority to look for specific records.
- Be Prepared for Appeals: If the PIO’s response is unsatisfactory or delayed (beyond the stipulated 30 days under Section 7 of the RTI Act), be prepared to file a First Appeal and, if necessary, a Second Appeal to the CIC as per Section 19 of the RTI Act.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide the current status of the conveyance deed registered on [Date of Registration, if known] between [Party 1 Name] and [Party 2 Name] with registration number [Registration Number, if known]. Kindly also provide information on whether this conveyance deed has been cancelled or is under the process of cancellation, along with copies of any relevant official orders, court directives, or entries in the official register that confirm its status.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the vital role of the RTI Act in ensuring transparency and accountability, especially when dealing with complex property-related matters. using the RTI Act, citizens can unearth information, challenge dubious practices, and seek redressal for grievances. If you suspect a conveyance deed to be bogus or improperly registered, remember that seeking information through RTI is a legitimate and effective first step towards resolving the issue. The CIC’s intervention in this case serves as a reminder that government departments are obligated to provide accurate and complete information to citizens, and non-compliance can lead to penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
