This is a distressing situation that highlights a significant breakdown in the administrative and legal machinery designed to protect citizens’ rights. Below is a structured blog post based on the details provided, focusing on the core issue of systemic negligence and the denial of inheritance rights.
The Silence of Justice: How a Class-1 Heir is Being Erased by Administrative Apathy
In the heart of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, a legal battle is unfolding that serves as a grim reminder of how “Deep-Rooted Corruption” and “Administrative Insolence” can leave a citizen’s rights in the dust. The case of Sadhana Tiwari is not just a personal grievance; it is a scathing indictment of the Right to Information (RTI) framework and the revenue department’s functioning.
The Core Issue: The Erasure of a Class-1 Heir
At the center of this dispute is a fundamental violation of inheritance law. Under the law, if a son (Siyakant Mishra) predeceases his father (Shambhu Sharan Mishra), the children of that deceased son become Class-1 Heirs to the grandfather’s property.
Sadhana Tiwari, then only 10 years old, was the rightful heir to her grandfather’s estate. However, during the inheritance process, her name was allegedly omitted—a move she claims was orchestrated through collusion between her uncles and the staff of the Lalganj Tehsil. By failing to recognize her status, the administration has effectively “erased” her legal existence in the revenue records.
A Mockery of the RTI Act, 2005
When Ms. Tiwari sought clarity through the Right to Information Act, she was met with a wall of silence. The RTI Act was designed to ensure transparency, yet in this instance, it has been treated with “insolence.
- The PIO’s Failure: The Public Information Officer (Sri Omprakash Singh) failed to provide information within the stipulated 30-day window.
- The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Negligence: Even after escalating the matter to the Superintendent of Police (SP) Mirzapur as the FAA, no order was passed.
This silence is what legal scholars call the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”—a refusal to provide reasons that essentially denies the citizen their right to justice.
The “Civil Nature” Trap: Police vs. Criminal Offence
A recurring theme in this struggle is the tendency of the police and revenue staff to label the matter as “purely civil.” However, Ms. Tiwari’s petition raises critical criminal questions:
- Forgery (IPC 466): If names were deliberately concealed in public registers to deprive an heir, is that not forgery?
- Mischief (IPC 425): If property value and utility are diminished by changing its situation through fraudulent inheritance, is that not a criminal act?
The appellant argues that the police are acting as “counselors” rather than law enforcers, dismissing deep-seated corruption as a mere property dispute to avoid “belling the cat.
The Human Cost of Delay
The most heartbreaking element of this case is the vulnerability of the appellant. Being orphaned by her father and living with maternal relatives for her own safety at age 10, she was in no position to fight for her rights when the inheritance was processed. Now, as an adult, she is fighting a system that seems more interested in protecting its own than in correcting a decade-old wrong.
Conclusion: A Call for Accountability
The Second Appeal (A-20241200797) filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is a final plea for transparency. As Ms. Tiwari rightly cites, “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.”
Without a speaking order and a thorough inquiry into the actions of the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar of Lalganj, the pillars of democracy—transparency and accountability—remain under threat.
Based on the details of your case—where property was allegedly usurped through the concealment of names and collusion with officials—here are the specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that are most relevant to your grievance.
Note: While the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the IPC in July 2024, your case involves historical acts (from when you were 10 years old) and an RTI filed regarding those past actions, so the IPC sections remain the primary legal reference for the original offence.
1. Forgery of Public Records
Since you allege that the inheritance records at the Tehsil were manipulated to exclude your name, this section is critical.
- Section 466: Forgery of record of Court or of public register.
- Application: This applies if a public servant or private individual forges a document that is supposed to be kept by a public servant (like the Revenue Records/Khatauni).
- Section 468: Forgery for purpose of cheating.
- Application: Used when documents are forged specifically 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.
- Application: This covers the act of dishonestly concealing the existence of an heir (you) to ensure the property is distributed only among the other parties.
3. Criminal Breach of Trust & Cheating
- Section 406: Punishment for criminal breach of trust.
- Application: If the elders in the family were expected to protect the interests of a minor (you) but instead converted the property for their own use.
- Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Application: This is the core section for cases where someone is deceived (or the system is deceived) to gain a property advantage.
4. Criminal Conspiracy and Common Intention
Since you mentioned the involvement of the Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector alongside your relatives, these sections link them all 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 you noted, the intent to cause wrongful loss by changing the situation of the property.
- Section 166: Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.
- Application: Specifically targets the Tehsil officials who ignored the law of succession to favor your uncles.
Comparison of Heirship Rights
To explain to the Commission why these IPC sections apply despite the “Civil” nature of property, you can use the logic of the Hindu Succession Act:
| Section | Nature of Act | Why it fits your case |
| IPC 466 | Forgery | Changing Tehsil records to omit your name. |
| IPC 420 | Cheating | Dishonestly claiming sole ownership to the exclusion of a minor. |
| IPC 166 | Misconduct | Officials ignoring the fact that a predeceased son’s daughter is a Class-1 heir. |
| IPC 120B | Conspiracy | The “deep-rooted corruption” between relatives and Tehsil staff. |
Next Step for your Appeal
In your hearing, you should emphasize that “A civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution if the civil dispute was created through a criminal act (forgery and cheating).”
To ensure your records are complete and for your upcoming proceedings, here is a consolidated directory of all relevant application IDs, contact details, and web links related to your case.
1. Case Tracking & Application IDs
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)
These are the official contacts for the officers you have named in your 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
You can use these links to monitor your case or submit further documents.
- RTI Online (UP State):rtionline.up.gov.in
- Action: Check your RTI and First Appeal status here.
- UP Information Commission (CIS):upsic.up.gov.in
- Action: Track your Second Appeal (A-20241200797) and look for hearing notices.
- Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal:jansunwai.up.nic.in
- Action: Check the status of your grievance against the Tehsil staff.
- UP Police Directory:uppolice.gov.in
- Action: Verify the current postings of the officers involved.
Important Reminder for the Hearing
Since your hearing date is mentioned as 16/06/2025, please ensure you have a physical set of all these documents. If the PIO attempts to say the records were transferred or are “not archival,” you can use the RTI Registration Number SPMZR/R/2024/60168 to show they acknowledged receipt but sat on it for months.
Would you like me to help you format a “List of Dates and Events” document that you can hand to the Commissioner during your hearing to show the exact timeline of delays?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.