RTI Act beneficiary finds it getting diluted over the years

It helped him legally assert ownership over 3 public streets at Anna Nagar

Back in 2012, an 84-year-old A. Syed Abdul Rahim was on cloud nine because a series of applications filed by him under the Right to Information (RTI) Act helped him legally assert ownership over three public streets at Anna Nagar here. However, now he is disillusioned.

Mr. Rahim who obtained a civil court decree in August 2012 declaring a 40-foot-wide road, named Moulana Sahib Street, on 54.5 cents of land and two 30-foot-wide roads, named Periyar Street (17.5 cents) and Kamarajar Street (22.5 cents), to be his private properties is now unable to obtain crucial documents to defend an appeal preferred by Madurai Corporation since the information is being denied to him.

His brother-in-law F.M. Jamiluddin (79), who has been drafting his RTI applications, says in 1948 Mr. Rahim’s parents S. Abbas and A. Sunna Beevi owned about 10 acres in what is now Anna Nagar when a scheme, named Mathichiyam Part II Town Planning Scheme, was framed for the development of areas abutting Madurai Town.

The couple divided their land into residential plots for sale and left about 95 cents of their property for formation of the three roads under the scheme hoping that they would be acquired by the local bodies.

Since Madurai Corporation did not acquire the three scheme roads from them and pay necessary compensation, the couple began filing a series of writ petitions in the Madras High Court since 1981.

In 1991, Justice S. Ramalingam held that the Corporation could not be compelled to acquire a particular land but said the three streets would remain as a private property and the owners could restrain people from using them as public roads. The decision was upheld by a Division Bench.

After the couple’s death, the Corporation invoked Section 254 of the Madurai Municipal Corporation Act and issued a gazette notification in August 1998 declaring the three streets as public property. Though Mr. Rahim filed a writ petition challenging the notification, the matter was put in cold storage until the RTI Act came into force.

In 2007, Mr. Rahim filed a civil suit seeking a compensation of Rs. 1.97 crore on the strength of voluminous documents accessed through the RTI Act, and obtained a favourable decree in 2012. But the civic body belatedly preferred an appeal before the Madras High Court Bench in July last and obtained a stay order.

Explaining the reason for the delay, the then Corporation Commissioner contended that the file relating to the case had gone missing and it was traced only after Mr. Rahim took steps to get the Corporation building attached for non-payment of compensation.

However, to disprove the claim, Mr. Rahim again filed a series of RTI applications seeking copies of various Note Sheets, but in vain. In November 2015, Tamil Nadu State Information Commission held that the Corporation could not deny the information. Yet the civic body remained silent, prompting him to approach the Commission again. But this time, the Commission on June 29 took a different stand and said note files were privilege documents and could not be disclosed.

“I have all along been successful in obtaining information under the RTI Act but over the years, I feel that information has become hard to come by even under this legislation,” Mr. Jamiluddin laments.

He is now unable to obtain crucial documents to defend an appeal preferred by Madurai Corporation