The denial of information pertaining to details of the survey conducted by Survey of India (SoI) to demarcate Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh, in the backdrop of allegations of illegal mining in Ballari district, has raised eyebrows.
In its reply to applications filed under the Right to Information Act by Ballari-based miner and activist Tapal Ganesh, who had been questioning the survey methodology, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Geo-Spatial Data Center (AP&T GDC), the Survey of India, Hyderabad, has declared that details sought is “classified information covered under Section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act, 2005, and cannot be supplied.”
Mr. Ganesh, who has time and again alleged that the SoI survey team had “deliberately adopted the incorrect survey method” to protect BJP leader and mining baron G. Janardhan Reddy in illegal mining cases, had filed two applications in May, 2021, – one before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Ballari and other before the SoI’s AP&T GDC, Hyderabad. The former had forwarded the application to the latter.
The information sought included the proceedings of survey and demarcation, survey sketch/map, survey DGP survey readings with altitude level of each survey (boundary) point, drone survey, objection for the survey, if any, and maps showing the contour and stream levels in geo-coded Ballari Reserve Forest Map of 1896. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) refused to disclose the information by declaring it as classified under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Mr. Ganesh approached the appellant authority which also, on December 10, 2021, upheld the CPIO’s decision.
As per Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, a public authority is not under obligation to furnish the information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.
Mr. Ganesh, speaking to The Hindu, insisted that he had not sought sensitive information that would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or harm national interest. “I have not sought any defence secrets discolour,” he said. He has now approached the Central Information Commission. Mr. Ganesh pointed out that the apex court had, in 2017, directed SoI to complete the survey and align the interstate boundary in six weeks.
Backdrop of survey
The survey was taken up in the backdrop of allegations that Obulapuram Mining Company, owned by Mr. Reddy, had illegally carried out mining along the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh border in Ballari district and altered the inter-State boundary to show the mined area as a part of Andhra Pradesh.
Upon the Supreme Court’s directions, SoI had taken up the survey to demarcate the actual boundary between the two States. It recently completed its task. Mr. Ganesh has, however, been raising objections to the survey methodology.
In its reply to an earlier query by Mr. Ganesh, the Director of AP&T GDC had insisted that “inter-State boundary between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh has been aligned taking into consideration the contentions/ consensus of both Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka Governments.” It said that “the alignment of the boundary has been agreed upon by the Governments of both Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.”
