Chennai: A two-year delay by revenue officials in furnishing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act led to the sale of a woman's property to another person without her knowledge. The state information commission has ordered a compensation of ₹25,000, which was collected as a penalty from the public information officer (PIO) concerned for dereliction of duty.
Background of the Case
The victim, M Yashodha of Villupuram district, filed two RTI applications in 2023 seeking documents from the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) regarding settlement details of specific survey numbers in Tiruvallur district. When she did not receive the information within the stipulated time, she approached the state information commission later that year with a second appeal, seeking action against the PIO.
Hearing and Revelation
In February this year, when the appeal came up for hearing before Information Commissioner R Priyakumar, the appellant stated that she finally received the required information only in December last year. However, by that time, the land in question, which belonged to her mother, had already been sold to someone else without her knowledge.
PIO's Explanation
The PIO submitted that her original petition, addressed to the survey inspector, was transferred to the taluk deputy survey inspector in September 2023, adding that the post remained vacant at that time. The PIO further stated that she joined only five months ago and had since furnished a copy of the reply.
Commission's Order
Recording the submissions, the commission directed the Director of Survey and Land Records to inquire with the Assistant Director for failing to appoint a PIO for nearly a year. It also ordered the collection of ₹25,000 from the officer as a penalty, to be paid to the aggrieved petitioner.
Compliance Report
In its compliance report, the Director of Survey and Land Records stated that there was a PIO during the said period and added that a memo has been issued against him to initiate departmental action. The Director also confirmed that ₹25,000 had been collected from the PIO and handed over to the petitioner.
