LAWS(KAR)-2010-5-6

MANGILAL Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

Decided On May 27, 2010
MANGILAL Appellant
V/S
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is questioning the initiation of proceedings under the Right to Information Act and also the order passed by the 1st respondent - State Information Commissioner. The petitioner is also questioning the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which is an offshoot of the directions issued by the 1st respondent - pursuant to its orders dated Annexures 'B' and 'C'.

(2.) The matter arises in the following manner:

(3.) It appears this information was not furnished by the Public Information Officer, Office of the Tahsildar. Devanahalli Taluk. Hence, the said application was placed before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner and all other concerned and the applicant was assisted by Counsel, so also the respondents before the State Information Commissioner. The State Information Commissioner, pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2008 has directed the 3rd respondent to gather necessary information in respect of the acquisition of the land by the petitioner, including whether the land was granted in favour of the petitioner and the same is in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act inasmuch as, as on 01.03.1.974, whether the petitioner was an agriculturist and with reference to his income. The order further discloses that a finding is practically recorded indicating that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In the circumstances, the Commission directed the 2nd respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings and file a report within a period of 30 days. The matter thereafter was adjourned to 22.01.2009. The proceedings on 22.01.2009 would further disclose that notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had made an application on 15.05.2008, since the said information was not given, an explanation was sought as to the delay. The Commissioner further directed the 2nd respondent to report to him as to the progress on the initiation of proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.