they have opened a separate file, containing additional sheets, and that as the original file contained only pages numbering 1 to 18, they furnished only that record to the applicant. This stand taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not appeal to the Court. If really, the original file was sent to the Government, for considering the applications of the members of the petitioner society, for regularization of their plots, nothing prevented respondent No.2 from informing the same to applicant who sought information under the Right to Information Act, that the copies of the record which they are furnishing, does not constitute the entire file, but constitutes only a part of it. In fact, respondent No.2 sought to give this explanation for the first time to this Court, even though he filed counter on 04.06.2010, i.e. much after passing the alleged order under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 11.01.2006 and taking over possession of the surplus land on 30.01.2006. Though respondent No.2 has taken this stand, the fact remains, as noted supra, when one of the members of the petitioner society made application under the Right to Information Act, seeking copies of the file relating to ULC proceedings in question, respondent No.2 furnished copies of the file relating to the ULC proceedings in question, numbering 1 to 18 only. This makes it clear that when respondent No.2 furnished the information to the applicant under the Right to Information Act, the file relating to the ULC proceedings in question, contained only page Nos.1 to 18, while the extra pages which respondent No.2 now sought to produce, to justify their action of taking over possession of the land allegedly from the original pattedar, were not available and, in fact, not in existence in the file. Be that as it may, even assuming that the extra pages were available in a separate file, as on the date when respondent No.2 furnished information to one of the members of the petitioner society on his request under the Right to Information Act, yet respondent No.2 cannot be said to have taken possession of the surplus land validly, for the reason that a perusal of the record produced by respondent Nos.1 and 2, inclusive of the appended extra pages, shows that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, was issued only to the original pattedar and not to the petitioner society and their members, who admittedly, are in possession of the surplus land, and in fact, only draft under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, was put up for approval, as is evident from the extra pages appended to the file.
