Rajesh Gupta
Jammu, Jan 20: CTP & Tehsildar, JDA overruled the instructions issued for implementation of RTI Act, which is proved from the latest reply by Secretary, the PIO JDA provided vide No. JDA/RTI/PIO/2026/699/143 dtd 16.01.2026 received on 20.01.2026.
One can see proved incompetence of CTP that for a simple information in S,No. 1, he refused it by quoting Sec 8(1)(b) & in No.2, informed that 29 cases pending beyond 3o days but UBBL has said applicant to start the work if no permission accorded in 30 days?
In reply to S,NO 3, it clearly speaks that Revenue Officers of JDA do not know which of their lands are not fenced, means allowing encroachments, if not aware of that & reply to No. 4, it has been replied that 95 court cases of encroached plot are pending in various courts, for it Govt act in whose fault lands were encroached & whether these were fenced?
Strange in reply to No. 9 it stands replied with no details & reply of S.No. 8 is shocking that notice stands served since years & copy of the same stands wsaped to the boss CTP, which was with duly receipt of JDA, raised a open question of intentional delay on the part of CTP & JDA as a whole.
However ,it was further mailed with receipts to VC JDA for action but VC also only marked the application & ATR?
Once upon a time a simple application under RTI was filed for seeking information regarding process of her own case on 2nd of July 2025, which was to be provided by 2nd August but,However, unsatisfactory reply was provided by the Secretary, as PIO,. Lekh Raj, Secretary, JDA as refused some personal information of applicants own file by quoting Sec 8(1)(b), which nowhere speaks for denial of such information?.
However, applicant filed Ist Appeal, & which was fixed on 4th August for hearing & by hearing, which was attended by representative of applicant, PIO, Tehsildar, Legal Assistant, Patwari concerned but none of the officers themselves could justify their observation of imposing Sec 8(1)(b) for not providing information.
Ist Appellant Authority, Jammu Dev Authority on the same day & time directed PIO, Secretary JDA to provide correct reply but the reply of boss PIO again raised a pointer towards working of Secretary, JDA, the PIO
However, order copy of the order issued by Ist Appellant Authority on 15th Sep, copy of RTI reply & clarification on Sec 8(1)(b), copy with CTN speaks the truth of working & causing intentional delays in public works of JDA as a whole, needed to be acted upon by VC, JDA to streamline the system in JDA , otherwise it can be observed that how such like Officers would have deciding genuine issues of general public of genuine & routine issues.
Now, one can see in reply to Ist Appeal in S.No.1 it has been informed that "Act does not permit creation of information", The information sought by the applicant is not available in the shape" but if it be matched wrt reply in Ist reply, where Sec 8(1)(b) was quoted, contradicts & raised clear cut questions concerned as this is legal language reply, otherwise it was simply asked for the noting made by concerned junior officers, who dared to over rule then VCs clear cut orders passed vide No. PS/430 dtd 11,08,2018 till day causing intentional delay in the applicants case?
In reply to S.No. 2 after Ist Appeal it has been replied that "Act does not permit creation of information, The information sought by the applicant is not available in the shape" but shocking to mention here that it was simply asked to provide noting's made after communication of Div Com Jammu from 19.09.2023 but in previous reply Sec 8(1)(b) was quoted.
In reply to S.no.3, now it has been replied that "Demarcation line of PWD Line is not found in the records as land transferred to JDA 2004", then why they are asking for same in applicants case over a decided issue adjoining to JDAs land, raised a pointer towards their working &n proved case of woman harassment & causing intentional delays in public works?
In reply to para 4, now it has been replied that 13 NOCs are pending since more than 30 days but previously it was replied that no NOC is pending create doubts on working of such like officers, otherwise as per BP rules it has been clarified that if no information provided to applicant after applying for BP case, he can start the work but if NOCs are put on hold on 30th day may cause approval of the BP Cases on proved fault of concerned Revenue Officer.
Now in reply to S.no 5 it is again strange to mention here that simple information was sought on JDA Lands, which are not fenced with quantity but a shocking reply has been proved that Revenue Officers are not aware of the quantity & details of JDA lands, which are open & which has to be fenced, which are causing encroachment by land grabbers in later stage, which is proved from the reply that concerned officers are not aware of their lands, which are needed to be fenced, a serious issue to be looked into by the VC JDA?
However, snapshots below with CTN speaks the competence of concerned officers of Jammu Dev Authority as PMO replied on RTI information's but JDA bosses quoted Sec 8(1)(b), needed to be acted upon to streamline the system.
 (1).jpg)   .jpg) 
|