1 CGHC010268952026 2026:CGHC:38545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3881 of 2026 1 - Amrita Bai Komra Wife Of Dhansai Komra, Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Village - Dhansera, Tahsil -Sarona, District -North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Officer, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Sub -Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker, District -North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar, Sarona, District -North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Sage Singh Vatti Son Of Sonar Singh Resident Of Village - Dhansera, Tahsil - Sarona, District -North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For State : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the action by the respondent authorities in not providing the entire information as sought by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent no. 5 has fraudulently obtained patta in respect of land of petitioner and on the basis of said patta, with the AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.09.02 11:20:52 +0530 2 collusion of the then Patwari and Revenue Inspector, Respondent no. 5 has obtained revenue map and other documents in respect of land of petitioner. After knowledge of said patta, the petitioner applied under RTI Act for providing the name of concerned the then Patwari & Revenue Inspector and their present designation. The petitioner has also sought information regarding action taken against the revenue authority who have illegally done official duties and also sought for the copy of patta issued in favour of respondent no. 5 in respect of land khasra no. 90/2 situated at Village Dhanesara. Despite filing of aforesaid application, Respondent no. 4 has not provided the information sought by the petitioner. As the information was not supplied to the petitioner, therefore the petitioner filed first appeal before the respondent no. 3. Vide order dated 22.02.2023, Respondent no. 3 has closed the appeal proceedings by observing that in the year 1995-96, total 131 persons were issued settlement patta, in which, the name of respondent no. 5 is not mentioned in the list, therefore there is no possibility to provide the information sought by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed second appeal before the respondent no. 2 for providing information. During pendency of appeal, vide letter dated 26.06.2024 & 27.06.2024 improper and incomplete information was provided to the petitioner. Vide order dated 12.12.2025, Respondent no. 2 has closed the proceedings of second appeal by observing that the information sought by the petitioner has been supplied to her. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had sought information under the RTI Act, however, incomplete information was provided to her which led her to file second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information 3 Commission, Raipur, however, the second appellate Court dismissed the second appeal of the petitioner holding that the information as sought by the petitioner has already been provided to her and the information which does not fall within the domain of concerned office has accordingly been not provided. 4. Learned counsel for Chhattisgarh State Information Commission submits that the additional information on which the petitioner is persisting does not fall within the purview of RTI Act. The petitioner ought to have filed application for obtaining certified copies before the concerned revenue authorities particularly Tehsildar and she would have got the information. So far as the onus on the RTI authorities is concerned, they have already supplied the information to the petitioner available under their domain. 5. Learned State counsel supports the submission provided by counsel for CG State Information Commission. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the information sought by the petitioner in her application before the Public Information Officer, this Court is of the opinion that the documents/information relating to the revenue proceedings, including the relevant revenue records, could be obtained by the petitioner by moving an appropriate application for certified copies before the competent revenue authority. Therefore, to the aforesaid extent, the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 is modified. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the concerned revenue authority for obtaining certified copies of the relevant documents in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the remaining part of the impugned order shall remain 4 undisturbed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash