CIC / SIC decisions — Revenue department — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

CIC / SIC decisions — Revenue department

Land is the most litigated thing an Indian owns, and the revenue department holds its story — the mutation, the survey, the acquisition, the quiet denotification that returns acquired land to private hands. Because these records touch both the public purse and private pockets, the Commissions treat them as presumptively public, severing only the genuinely personal or commercial slivers.

Public records with a personal edge

A. The general rule — land records are public

Records of rights, mutation registers, survey and settlement records and revenue court orders are public records maintained for public purposes. There is a strong public interest in transparency over land, so the Commissions routinely direct their disclosure; the applicant need not even show a locus or reason (s. 6(2)).

B. Where an exemption bites

Two exemptions occasionally apply in part:

Section 8(1)(d) — commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, where disclosure would harm a third party’s competitive position (e.g. a private valuation in an acquisition file).
Section 8(1)(j) — the personal information of a private landholder unconnected to any public activity.

The answer is not refusal but severance under s. 10: release the public record, redact the protected part.

Section 10(1), Right to Information Act, 2005: “Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then… access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.”

In Simple Terms: A file is not all-or-nothing. If one page is exempt and nineteen are not, the citizen gets the nineteen. Severance is the Commission’s standard answer to a part-personal, part-public revenue file.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — “the file has private parts” is not “refuse the file”

A PIO who finds some personal or commercial matter in a denotification or acquisition file must not reject the whole request. Section 10 makes severance mandatory, not optional — refusing the entire file when only part is exempt is itself a wrong denial. The exemption shrinks the disclosure; it never cancels it.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the denotification records (2012)

Facts. An applicant seeks details of the denotification of land (land withdrawn from acquisition) over a period. The department refuses, saying land records involve private parties.

Rule. Land and denotification records are public records; s. 8(1)(d)/(j) may protect discrete commercial or personal parts; s. 10 requires severance rather than blanket refusal.

Apply. The decoy is “land records are private”. Denotification is a public administrative act with a strong public interest — it decides who profits when acquired land is released. The identity of the beneficiary, the reasons and the sanction are disclosable. Any genuinely personal detail (a private individual’s unrelated data) or a protected commercial valuation is redacted under s. 10; the rest is given.

Conclusion. The applicant is entitled to the denotification particulars, with only the truly exempt fragments severed — never a wholesale refusal.

flowchart TD
    A["REVENUE / LAND RECORD REQUEST"]
    A --> B["General rule — PUBLIC records<br/>mutation, survey, denotification;<br/>no reason needed (s. 6(2))"]
    A --> C["Part exempt?<br/>s. 8(1)(d) commercial confidence /<br/>s. 8(1)(j) private landholder data"]
    C --> D["SEVER under s. 10 —<br/>release the public part,<br/>redact the exempt part"]
    C --> E["Public interest in land dealings<br/>is HIGH -> disclose the rest"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E box;

Case Laws

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) — records held by a public authority are held in trust for the public; a confidentiality label does not settle the question.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) — purely personal information within a public file is exempt under s. 8(1)(j), which supports severance rather than total refusal.
Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007, Delhi HC) — the burden of proving that a revenue record is exempt lies on the PIO.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics