Moneylife: Pune: Saturday, 27 December 2025.
A fresh first appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has once again brought scrutiny on the management of government bungalows located in the Lutyens bungalow zone (LBZ) of New Delhi, raising questions over illegal retention of official residences, allotments to private trusts, court-stayed evictions and arbitrary renumbering of prime government properties.
The appeal has been filed
by noted RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal before directorate of estates
under the Union ministry of urban development, challenging the response to his
online RTI application dated 16 November 2025.
In his application, Mr Agrawal sought detailed records, file-notings and correspondence relating to government bungalows in New Delhi that continue to be occupied even after occupants have lost entitlement, residences where eviction proceedings are stayed by courts, and properties allotted to private trusts or foundations, including those converted into memorials of departed leaders.
He also sought rules governing allotment of government bungalows to private entities, the complete occupation history of bungalow No6, Krishna Menon Marg from Independence till date, and records relating to the conversion of bungalow No7, Krishna Menon Marg into bungalow No8-A. The application further sought clarity on whether any rules permit changes in bungalow numbering and, if no such rules exist, steps taken to restore original numbers.
Bungalow No6, Krishna Menon Marg has been converted into the Babu Jagjivan Ram National Foundation and will stay with the foundation till 2038. According to a report from The Print, till 2020, bungalow No7, Krishna Menon Marg was occupied by a senior judge of the Supreme Court. "Sources in the Supreme Court have told The Print that renovation work has started to integrate two bungalows in Lutyens’ Delhi. The 5, Krishan Menon Marg, which is the official residence of the CJI, will be combined with the adjacent 7, Krishna Menon Marg to establish a bigger residence-cum-office," the report says.
According to the report, both bungalows fall in the category of type 8 residential government accommodation and are part of the Supreme Court’s resources. While the 5, Krishan Menon Marg is 642 sqm in size, the 7, Krishna Menon Marg is 711 sqm.
According to the appeal filed by Mr Agrawal, the central public information officer (CPIO) declined information on key queries relating to illegal occupation, court cases and allotments to trusts by invoking Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, claiming that providing the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the directorate.
Mr Agrawal has contested this reasoning, stating that the number of government bungalows in New Delhi is limited and that information on exceptions like unauthorised occupants or special allotments should be readily available. He has argued that such data ought to be proactively disclosed on official websites and has sought directions for the information to be furnished free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
The appeal also flags discrepancies in the RTI reply, pointing out that documents claimed to have been enclosed by the CPIO are not actually provided. Mr Agrawal has sought their disclosure, again invoking provisions for free supply of information due to what he terms an unjustified denial.
A key focus of the appeal is bungalow No6, Krishna Menon Marg, where information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on grounds of personal information. Mr Agrawal has cited an order passed by central information commission (CIC) on 7 May 2012, which had directed the ministry to place complete occupancy details of the bungalow in the public domain. He has argued that the denial ignores a binding CIC verdict and amounts to institutional non-compliance.
The appeal further calls for renewed public disclosure of records relating to the renumbering of official residences, questioning whether such changes were carried out to suit individual preferences rather than under any statutory framework.
The appeal filed by Mr Agrawal goes beyond individual properties and raises broader concerns about transparency, accountability and rule-based management of high-value public assets in Lutyens’ Delhi. Government bungalows in New Delhi are among the most valuable public properties in the country and any deviation from allotment rules, whether through illegal retention, preferential allotment or manipulation of records, has direct implications for public trust and equality before law.
A fresh first appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has once again brought scrutiny on the management of government bungalows located in the Lutyens bungalow zone (LBZ) of New Delhi, raising questions over illegal retention of official residences, allotments to private trusts, court-stayed evictions and arbitrary renumbering of prime government properties.
In his application, Mr Agrawal sought detailed records, file-notings and correspondence relating to government bungalows in New Delhi that continue to be occupied even after occupants have lost entitlement, residences where eviction proceedings are stayed by courts, and properties allotted to private trusts or foundations, including those converted into memorials of departed leaders.
He also sought rules governing allotment of government bungalows to private entities, the complete occupation history of bungalow No6, Krishna Menon Marg from Independence till date, and records relating to the conversion of bungalow No7, Krishna Menon Marg into bungalow No8-A. The application further sought clarity on whether any rules permit changes in bungalow numbering and, if no such rules exist, steps taken to restore original numbers.
Bungalow No6, Krishna Menon Marg has been converted into the Babu Jagjivan Ram National Foundation and will stay with the foundation till 2038. According to a report from The Print, till 2020, bungalow No7, Krishna Menon Marg was occupied by a senior judge of the Supreme Court. "Sources in the Supreme Court have told The Print that renovation work has started to integrate two bungalows in Lutyens’ Delhi. The 5, Krishan Menon Marg, which is the official residence of the CJI, will be combined with the adjacent 7, Krishna Menon Marg to establish a bigger residence-cum-office," the report says.
According to the report, both bungalows fall in the category of type 8 residential government accommodation and are part of the Supreme Court’s resources. While the 5, Krishan Menon Marg is 642 sqm in size, the 7, Krishna Menon Marg is 711 sqm.
According to the appeal filed by Mr Agrawal, the central public information officer (CPIO) declined information on key queries relating to illegal occupation, court cases and allotments to trusts by invoking Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, claiming that providing the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the directorate.
Mr Agrawal has contested this reasoning, stating that the number of government bungalows in New Delhi is limited and that information on exceptions like unauthorised occupants or special allotments should be readily available. He has argued that such data ought to be proactively disclosed on official websites and has sought directions for the information to be furnished free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
The appeal also flags discrepancies in the RTI reply, pointing out that documents claimed to have been enclosed by the CPIO are not actually provided. Mr Agrawal has sought their disclosure, again invoking provisions for free supply of information due to what he terms an unjustified denial.
A key focus of the appeal is bungalow No6, Krishna Menon Marg, where information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on grounds of personal information. Mr Agrawal has cited an order passed by central information commission (CIC) on 7 May 2012, which had directed the ministry to place complete occupancy details of the bungalow in the public domain. He has argued that the denial ignores a binding CIC verdict and amounts to institutional non-compliance.
The appeal further calls for renewed public disclosure of records relating to the renumbering of official residences, questioning whether such changes were carried out to suit individual preferences rather than under any statutory framework.
The appeal filed by Mr Agrawal goes beyond individual properties and raises broader concerns about transparency, accountability and rule-based management of high-value public assets in Lutyens’ Delhi. Government bungalows in New Delhi are among the most valuable public properties in the country and any deviation from allotment rules, whether through illegal retention, preferential allotment or manipulation of records, has direct implications for public trust and equality before law.
.JPG)
.JPG)
