Chennai: A Right to Information (RTI) application by a 66-year-old retired professor has brought to light how his private patta land in Kanyakumari district had been mistakenly classified as a temple property in the (HR&CE) department’s online ITMS database. The State Information Commission has now ordered a departmental inquiry and a show-cause notice proposing the maximum penalty against the then Public Information Officer (PIO). It also ordered adequate compensation to the senior citizen-appellant.Information commissioner VPR Ilamparithi passed the order while allowing a second appeal filed by S Madhankumar, who alleged that his ancestral land in Velimalai village of Kalkulam taluk had been wrongly uploaded as belonging to Arulmigu Kandan Sastha Temple in the ITMS portal of HR&CE department. According to the appellant, he discovered the erroneous entry only when he attempted to sell the property for his daughter’s marriage, following which he submitted representations to various revenue and HR&CE authorities seeking its removal.During the hearing, the public information officer admitted that while surveying lands surrounding the temple, the appellant’s land had been mistakenly uploaded as temple land in the ITMS database. The officer informed the Commission that a reply had been issued to the appellant and assured that complete information would be furnished.The commission, however, found that despite nearly two years having elapsed since the RTI application was filed, the appellant had not been provided complete information. It strongly criticised the conduct of the public authority, observing that the officer had failed to discharge statutory obligations under the RTI Act and had shown little regard for a law intended to promote transparency and corruption-free administration.The commission issued a show-cause notice to the then Public Information Officer, P Murugan, asking why the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 should not be imposed for failing to provide information within the prescribed time. He has been directed to appear before the Commission on August 14 with a written explanation.Holding that the delay, incomplete replies and misleading information had caused unnecessary hardship, mental agony and inconvenience to the appellant, the commission directed the public authority to pay ₹10,000 as compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act within a week and submit proof of payment before the commission.