This RTI Second Appeal case highlights a compelling narrative of a Class-1 heir who was unjustly erased from official records, a situation that not only jeopardizes her rights but also challenges the integrity of the bureaucratic system. The heir, determined to reclaim her rightful place and seek justice, has taken the courageous step of appealing to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Through this legal avenue, she aims to expose the irregularities and secure transparency in the documentation process. The case serves as an important reminder of the necessity for individuals to be vigilant and proactive in defending their rights against arbitrary actions. By confronting these issues head-on, she hopes to create a precedent and inspire others in similar situations to advocate for themselves and demand accountability from their government.

RTI Second Appeal: The Silence of Justice for a Class-1 Heir

In the heart of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, an RTI Second Appeal is unfolding that, above all, illustrates how deep-rooted corruption and administrative insolence can bury a citizen’s rights. Indeed, the case of Sadhana Tiwari goes beyond a personal grievance; in fact, it exposes serious cracks in both the Right to Information (RTI) framework and, more broadly, how the revenue department actually functions. Ultimately, her RTI Second Appeal now stands as the last formal route to accountability.

The Core Issue Behind This RTI Second Appeal: The Erasure of a Class-1 Heir

First and foremost, a fundamental violation of inheritance law sits at the center of this dispute. Specifically, under the law, when a son (Siyakant Mishra) predeceases his father (Shambhu Sharan Mishra), the children of that deceased son automatically become Class-1 Heirs to the grandfather’s property.

To begin with, Sadhana Tiwari, then only 10 years old, held rightful heir status to her grandfather’s estate. However, officials allegedly omitted her name during the inheritance process — specifically, a move she says her uncles orchestrated in collusion with staff at the Lalganj Tehsil. As a result, because the administration failed to recognize her status, it effectively erased her legal existence from the revenue records.

A Mockery of the RTI Act, 2005 — and Why the RTI Second Appeal Became Necessary

Next, when Ms. Tiwari sought clarity through the Right to Information Act, 2005, she met a wall of silence instead. Although the RTI Act was designed to ensure transparency, in this instance, officials nevertheless treated it with outright insolence — leaving an RTI Second Appeal as her only remaining option:

• The PIO’s Failure: For instance, the Public Information Officer (Sri Om Prakash Singh) did not provide information within the stipulated 30-day window.
• The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Negligence: Similarly, even after Ms. Tiwari escalated the matter to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur, as the FAA, no order followed.

Consequently, legal scholars call this kind of silence the “inscrutable face of the sphinx” — because, in the end, a refusal to provide reasons ultimately denies the citizen their right to justice.

The “Civil Nature” Trap: Why an RTI Second Appeal Still Matters in a Property Dispute

Furthermore, a recurring theme in this struggle involves the police and revenue staff repeatedly labeling the matter as “purely civil.” Yet, in contrast, Ms. Tiwari’s petition — now central to her RTI Second Appeal — raises critical criminal questions:

1. Forgery (IPC 466): For example, if officials deliberately concealed names in public registers to deprive an heir, doesn’t that amount to forgery?
2. Mischief (IPC 425): Likewise, if fraudulent inheritance changes diminish the property’s value and utility, doesn’t that qualify as a criminal act?

Overall, the appellant argues that, instead of enforcing the law, the police act as “counselors,” thereby dismissing deep-seated corruption as a mere property dispute simply to avoid “belling the cat.

The Human Cost of Delay Behind This RTI Second Appeal

Above all, the most heartbreaking element of this case lies in the appellant’s vulnerability. Specifically, orphaned by her father and living with maternal relatives for her own safety at age 10, she had no way to fight for her rights when officials processed the inheritance. Now, as an adult, however, she pursues her RTI Second Appeal against a system that seems more interested in protecting its own than in correcting a decade-old wrong.

Conclusion: The RTI Second Appeal as a Call for Accountability

In conclusion, this RTI Second Appeal (A-20241200797), filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, represents a final plea for transparency. As Ms. Tiwari rightly notes, moreover, giving reasons remains one of the fundamentals of good administration.

Therefore, without a speaking order and a thorough inquiry into the actions of the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar of Lalganj, the twin pillars of democracy — transparency and accountability — will ultimately remain under threat.

So, based on the details of this case, where officials allegedly usurped property through the concealment of names and collusion with staff, the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) apply most directly to the grievance behind this RTI Second Appeal.

Note: Although the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the IPC in July 2024, this case involves historical acts — dating back to when Ms. Tiwari was 10 years old — along with an RTI request concerning those past actions. Therefore, the IPC sections remain the primary legal reference for the original offence.

1. Forgery of Public Records — Central to the RTI Second Appeal

To begin with, since the inheritance records at the Tehsil were allegedly manipulated to exclude her name, this section becomes critical:

• Section 466 — Forgery of record of Court or of public register. Specifically, this applies when a public servant or private individual forges a document meant to be maintained by a public servant, such as the Revenue Records (Khatauni).
• Section 468 — Forgery for purpose of cheating. In particular, this applies when someone forges documents to cause wrongful loss of property to another person.

2. Fraudulent Removal or Concealment of Property

• Section 421/424 — Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent distribution to creditors or rightful claimants. Specifically, this covers the act of dishonestly concealing an heir’s existence to ensure the property goes only to other parties.

3. Criminal Breach of Trust & Cheating

• Section 406 — Criminal breach of trust. For example, this applies if the family elders, though expected to protect a minor’s interests, instead converted the property for their own use.
• Section 420 — Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Overall, this forms the core section for cases where someone deceives another party — or the system itself — to gain a property advantage.

4. Criminal Conspiracy and Common Intention

Additionally, because the Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector allegedly acted alongside the relatives, these sections link all parties together:

• Section 120B — Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
• Section 34 — Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

5. Mischief and Public Servant Misconduct

• Section 425 (Mischief): As noted earlier, this covers the intent to cause wrongful loss by changing the property’s situation.
• Section 166 — Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. Specifically, this targets Tehsil officials who ignored succession law in order to favor the uncles.

Comparison of Heirship Rights Relevant to the RTI Second Appeal

To explain to the Commission why these IPC sections apply despite the “civil” nature of the property dispute, the logic of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 helps:

Section	Nature of Act	Why it fits this case
IPC 466	Forgery	Officials allegedly changed Tehsil records to omit her name.
IPC 420	Cheating	Relatives dishonestly claimed sole ownership, excluding a minor.
IPC 166	Misconduct	Officials ignored that a predeceased son’s daughter is a Class-1 heir.
IPC 120B	Conspiracy	Deep-rooted corruption allegedly connected relatives and Tehsil staff.

Next Step for the RTI Second Appeal Hearing

Above all, during the RTI Second Appeal hearing, Ms. Tiwari should emphasize that a civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution if, in the first place, a criminal act — forgery and cheating — created that civil dispute.

So, to keep the records complete and ready for the proceedings ahead, here is a consolidated directory of all relevant application IDs, contact details, and web links related to the case.

1. Case Tracking & Application IDs for the RTI Second Appeal

First, use these registration numbers to check the current status on official portals.

Application Type	Registration Number	Important Dates
RTI Application (6/1)	SPMZR/R/2024/60168	Filed: 18/09/2024
First Appeal (19/1)	SPMZR/A/2024/60038	Filed: 23/10/2024
Second Appeal (19/3)	A-20241200797	Filed: 10/12/2024
UPIC File Number	S09/A/0719/2025	Hearing Date: 16/06/2025
IGRS Grievance	GOVUP/E/2024/0093166	Filed: 19/12/2024

2. Contact Details (Respondents & Commission)

Next, below are the official contacts for the officers named in this RTI Second Appeal.

Public Information Officer (PIO) – Office of SP Mirzapur

• Name: Sri Om Prakash Singh (ASP Operation)
• Mobile: 9454401105 / 9125608556
• Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in / aspopmzp@gmail.com
• Address: Office of Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, PIN 231001

First Appellate Authority (FAA)

• Name: Sri Abhinandan Singh (SP Mirzapur)
• Mobile: 9454400299
• Email: spmzr-up@nic.in
• Office Tel: 05442-252578

Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP 226010
• Phone: 0522-2724930
• Incharge (RTI Cell) Email: jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
• Registry Email: reg-section.upic@up.gov.in

3. Essential Web Links for the RTI Second Appeal

Finally, these links help track the case status or submit further documents.

• RTI Online (UP State): rtionline.up.gov.in — specifically, check the RTI and First Appeal status here.
• UP Information Commission (CIS): upsic.up.gov.in — similarly, track the RTI Second Appeal (A-20241200797) and watch for hearing notices.
• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in — likewise, check the grievance status against the Tehsil staff.
• UP Police Directory: uppolice.gov.in — finally, verify the current postings of the officers involved.

Important Reminder for the RTI Second Appeal Hearing

In short, since the hearing date falls on 16/06/2025, make sure to bring a physical set of all these documents. Moreover, if the PIO claims the records were transferred or are “not archival,” use RTI Registration Number SPMZR/R/2024/60168 to show that officials acknowledged receipt yet, nevertheless, sat on it for months. Ultimately, this RTI Second Appeal offers Sadhana Tiwari her clearest chance yet at correcting a decade-old wrong.