Land, building queries top RTI list

Mathang Seshagiri, TNN, Nov 22, 2010,

BANGALORE: Guess what information-seekers want to know the most under the Right to Information (RTI) Act? Details on land and buildings.

In the season of land scams, data for 2007-08 from the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) show that 51% of the total RTI applications in the state 30,432 of 59,772 from all 33 departments, were filed with those of the revenue and urban development sections. Public enterprises and infrastructure development got just three and seven applications respectively during the same period.

"Majority of the applications in these departments pertain to land sale deeds, khata conversions, mutation and record of rights copy. In the urban development department, which covers municipalities and corporations, many applications pertain to property disputes, illegal constructions and encroachments and building plan violations. The commission has asked the revenue department to digitise all land records in the state," H N Krishna, in-charge chief state information commissioner, told TOI.

The two departments earned Rs 4.1 lakh as fee by giving out information via the RTI act. The commerce and industries department (including mines, textiles and small scale industries), which collected Rs 1.46 lakh, is the other top grosser. In all, the 33 departments collected Rs 12.8 lakh through RTI applications.

Interestingly, the commission also admitted a whopping 2,112 complaints against the revenue and urban development departments for not sharing information under RTI act. Of the total 5,471 complaints during the period, 1,199 were against the urban development department. There were a mere three complaints against the office of the chief electoral officer for the same period.

The revenue department hasn't rejected a single application under section 8 of the RTI act. Curiously, the urban development department rejected 13 requests for information under section 8 (1) (a) which deals with sovereignty and integrity of India and the security, scientific, strategic and economic interests of the state. Two applications were rejected stating that disclosure of information would amount to contempt of court and was forbidden by the court of law/tribunal.