Allegations of Inheritance Fraud and Police Inaction in Mirzapur: A Case Study in BNS 2023

A formal grievance (Registration No: GOVUP/E/2025/0001547) has been lodged with the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister’s Secretariat, bringing to light a complex case of alleged revenue fraud, “criminal breach of trust,” and systemic corruption within the Mirzapur district administration.

The complainant, Sadhana Tiwari, alleges that local authorities and family members colluded to illegally usurp her ancestral property by manipulating inheritance records.

---

The Core Dispute: Irregularities in Succession

The crux of the matter lies in the timeline of succession. According to the complainant:

• Her father passed away five years before her grandfather.
• Under the law, she asserts that as a Class-1 heir, the inheritance should have flowed directly from her grandfather to her.
• At the time of this legal processing, Ms. Tiwari was a minor (approximately 10 years old).

She alleges that the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar of Lalganj deliberately omitted her name from the list of heirs. This omission is claimed to be a result of bribery and collusion with the other accused parties, Dayashankar Mishra and Hariprasad Mishra.

---

Legal Framework: Invoking the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The grievance specifically cites the newly implemented Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, moving beyond civil revenue disputes into the realm of criminal liability.

1. Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 316 BNS)

The complaint argues that those entrusted with the “dominion over property” or legal oversight (the revenue officials) dishonestly misappropriated the property in violation of the law. Under Section 316(3), if such trust is breached by those in specific administrative roles, the punishment can extend to seven years of imprisonment.

2. Cheating and Deception (Section 318 BNS)

The complainant alleges that deception was used to induce the delivery or retention of property. By intentionally persuading the revenue department to overlook a legal heir, the accused allegedly caused significant harm to the complainant’s property rights and reputation.

3. Cheating by Personation (Section 319 BNS)

The grievance hints at “cheating by personation,” suggesting that the inheritance process may have involved knowingly substituting or misrepresenting the status of heirs to gain access to assets.

---

Allegations Against Law Enforcement

A significant portion of the grievance is directed at the Station House Officer (SHO) of Drummond Ganj.

The complainant alleges that the SHO has failed to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite the evidence of criminal offenses. The document describes a “fear-psychosis” within the government machinery, claiming that officers are hesitant to “bell the cat” regarding deep-rooted corruption. The matter is currently under the supervision of the Circle Officer (C.O.) of Lalganj, but the complainant seeks higher intervention to ensure transparency and accountability.

---

Current Status and Demands

The grievance was officially received on January 5, 2025, and has been forwarded to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat in Lucknow.

The Complainant’s Demands:

• Registration of an FIR: Immediate police action against the accused under Sections 316, 318, and 319 of the BNS.
• Competent Enquiry: A high-level probe into the working of the Tehsil Lalganj staff (Lekhpal, Tehsildar, and Revenue Inspector).
• Restoration of Rights: Correction of the inheritance records to reflect the legal rights of the Class-1 heir.

---

Looking Ahead

This case serves as a litmus test for the application of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in rural property disputes. It highlights the challenges faced by citizens when civil revenue matters intersect with alleged criminal conspiracies. All eyes are now on the Chief Minister’s Secretariat to see if the “transparency and accountability” requested by the applicant will be upheld.

Would you like me to draft a follow-up letter or a formal reminder to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat regarding this grievance?

This development highlights a critical failure in the pre-mutation verification process conducted by the Revenue Department. Under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, the Lekhpal (Village Accountant) is legally obligated to perform a “thorough investigation” to identify all surviving legal heirs before a property is transferred from a deceased person to their successors.

The exclusion of Sadhana Tiwari, a Class-1 heir, suggests a breakdown in this mandatory verification. Below is a breakdown of how the process should have functioned and the legal implications of this “omission.”

---

The Legal Mandate for Lekhpal Investigation

When a landholder dies, the process of Mutation (Kharij-Dakhil) begins. The Lekhpal is the primary officer responsible for identifying the lineage.

• Field Verification: The Lekhpal is required to visit the village and consult the Parivar Register (Family Register) and local witnesses to verify the family tree (Shajra).
• Identification of Class-1 Heirs: Under the Hindu Succession Act (and corresponding revenue laws), the daughter of a pre-deceased son (Sadhana Tiwari, in this case) holds a primary right.
• The “Thorough Investigation” Requirement: If the Lekhpal reported that only Dayashankar and Hariprasad Mishra were heirs, while ignoring a surviving minor (at the time), it points toward Section 319 of the BNS (Cheating by Personation or Substitution) and professional misconduct.

---

Hierarchy of Succession in the Revenue Code

The following diagram illustrates the standard flow of inheritance and where the omission likely occurred in this specific case:

The Conflict in the Investigation

1. Direct Succession: Since the father died before the grandfather, the “Right of Representation” applies. Sadhana Tiwari steps into her father’s shoes to inherit his share of the grandfather’s estate.
2. Evidence of Collusion: The complainant alleges that the Lekhpal “overlooked” her existence during the field investigation. In legal terms, this is often argued as fraudulent concealment to benefit the other heirs.
3. The Minor Status: The fact that the applicant was 10 years old at the time creates a higher burden of care on the state. A minor cannot represent themselves; therefore, the Revenue Inspector and Tehsildar were duty-bound to protect the minor’s interest ex officio.

---

Actionable Legal Points for the Grievance

In follow-ups with Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary), it is vital to emphasize these specific points regarding the Lekhpal’s investigation:

Point of Failure	Legal Argument
Parivar Register	If the name was in the Family Register but omitted in the Revenue Record (Khatauni), it proves “Malafide Intent.”
Field Survey	If the Lekhpal did not record statements from neutral villagers, the “Thorough Investigation” was a sham.
Section 316 BNS	Entrustment: The Lekhpal is “entrusted” with the public duty of maintaining true records. Misrepresenting them is a Criminal Breach of Trust.

---

Recommended Next Steps

The focus should now shift to the Tehsil Records. You should demand an inspection of the “Virasat” (Inheritance) Report filed by the Lekhpal in 2025 (or the year the mutation occurred).

The struggle of social worker Yogi M P Singh to obtain the names of the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar involved in this case highlight a classic instance of bureaucratic stonewalling.

Despite the case being heard at the level of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), the Tehsil Lalganj has reportedly failed to provide the specific names of the officials who processed the inheritance of Sadhana Tiwari. This transparency is crucial because, under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, a First Information Report (FIR) against public servants requires identifying the individuals who committed the “omission” or “fraud.”

---

The Resistance: Why Names Are Being Withheld

The refusal to provide posting details often stems from a “protectionist” culture within the revenue department. By withholding names, the department effectively:

1. Shields Individuals from Criminal Prosecution: An FIR cannot be easily registered against “unknown officials” when the roles are specific (like the Lekhpal who verified the family tree).
2. Prevents Accountability: Without names, it is difficult to track if these officers have a history of similar “errors” or if they have since retired or moved to other districts.
3. Violates the RTI Act 2005: Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, public authorities are mandated to proactively disclose the names, designations, and duties of their officers. Citing “third-party information” to deny these details is legally untenable for public servants on duty.

---

Key Officials Currently Identified

Based on ongoing appeals and public records related to this grievance, the following names have emerged in connection with the administration at Tehsil Lalganj (as of 2025-2026):

Designation	Name (Identified in Appeals)	Role in Property Mutation
Tehsildar (PIO)	Smt. Diksha	Final authority for approving the inheritance (Virasat) report.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (FAA)	Shri Gulab Chandra Second	The First Appellate Authority responsible for overseeing Tehsil Lalganj.
Lekhpal / Revenue Inspector	Pending/Withheld	The ground-level officers who conducted the “thorough investigation” and omitted Sadhana Tiwari’s name.

---

Strategic Next Steps for the FIR

Since the Tehsil is refusing to provide the names, Yogi M P Singh and the applicant can use the following legal “levers”:

1. Invoking Section 18 & 20 of the RTI Act

If the PIO (Tehsildar) continues to withhold names after a Commission order, the State Information Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) on the officer personally. Requesting the Commission to initiate a Penalty Proceeding often forces the disclosure of names.

2. Filing an FIR against “The Post”

Legally, an FIR can be lodged against the “Then-posted Lekhpal of Village Bhaisod Balay Pahad (2020-2025)” and the “Then-posted Tehsildar Lalganj.” * The police are then legally empowered to seize the “Hasiya” (Mutation Register) and “Virasat Register” from the Tehsil.

• These registers contain the signatures and names of the officials who signed off on the inheritance.

3. Complaint to the District Magistrate (DM) Mirzapur

As the “Collector,” the DM has the administrative power to order the Tehsildar to release the service book/posting details of the concerned staff immediately.

---

Summary of the “Anarchy”

As Yogi M P Singh has noted in his appeals, the failure to appear before the State Information Commissioner (Shakuntala Gautam) reflects a state of administrative anarchy. When public servants hide their identities to avoid the consequences of a fraudulent land mutation, it reinforces the complainant’s allegation of “deep-rooted corruption.”

Would you like me to draft a formal “Notice of Non-Compliance” to be sent to the State Information Commission to trigger the penalty clause against the Lalganj Tehsildar?

The emergence of a civil suit titled Sadhana Tiwari vs. Ramdeia in the Court of the Naib Tehsildar is a classic administrative maneuver often used to stall criminal proceedings. If, as you state, Sadhana Tiwari did not file this suit herself, it strongly suggests a “Proxy Litigation” strategy designed to shield the accused officials and relatives.

Here is a breakdown of why this tactic is being used and how to legally dismantle it.

---

1. The “Subjudice” Trap: A Shield for Corruption

By creating a pending case in the Naib Tehsildar’s court, the perpetrators (the Lekhpal and family members) aim to achieve two things:

• Blocking the FIR: When the police are pressured to register an FIR for “Cheating” and “Forgery,” they often use the excuse that the matter is “subjudice” (under judicial consideration) in a revenue court to avoid taking criminal action.
• Legitimizing the Omission: If the revenue court eventually passes any order—even a procedural one—it can be used to claim that the exclusion of Sadhana Tiwari was a “legal error” rather than a “criminal conspiracy.

2. Legal Red Flags: Identity Theft in Litigation

If Sadhana Tiwari is the named plaintiff but did not sign the Vakalatnama (legal authorization) or the plaint, this is a serious criminal offense under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):

• Section 319 BNS (Cheating by Personation): Filing a suit in someone else’s name without their consent is a direct violation.
• Forgery of Court Documents: If her signatures were forged on the suit papers, it attracts Section 336-340 of BNS (Forgery of valuable security or court records), which carries severe penalties.

3. Procedural Irregularity: Naib Tehsildar’s Jurisdiction

A Naib Tehsildar typically handles Mutation (Virasat) cases. If this is being termed a “Civil Suit,” it might be a Section 116 (Partition) or Section 144 (Declaratory) suit under the UP Revenue Code 2006.

• Critical Question: How can a suit be filed by Sadhana Tiwari against “Ramdeia” (likely a relative or a third party) when her primary grievance is that she was excluded from the records entirely?

---

Strategic Counter-Measures

To stop this “subjudice” tactic from burying the criminal investigation, the following steps are recommended:

Action	Target Authority	Objective
Affidavit of Denial	Naib Tehsildar, Lalganj	Sadhana Tiwari should submit a notarized affidavit stating she never filed this suit and it is a result of fraud/impersonation.
Criminal Complaint for Forgery	SP Mirzapur / Magistrate	Lodge a fresh complaint specifically for forgery of court documents against the person who filed the fake suit.
Inspection of File	Court of Naib Tehsildar	Apply for a “Certified Copy” of the entire suit file to identify who signed as the “Counsel” and who “Identified” the plaintiff.
UPHRC Escalation	Human Rights Commission	Inform the Commission that the revenue staff is actively creating fake litigation to obstruct their previous orders.

---

The Role of the “Fake” Suit in Administrative Anarchy

As Yogi M P Singh has pointed out, the refusal to provide the names of the Lekhpal and RI was the first step. Creating a fake suit is the second step. This creates a “legal loop” where:

1. The Police say: “Go to Revenue Court.”
2. The Revenue Court says: “The case is pending (the fake one).”
3. The Applicant is left without a remedy.

Based on the facts you have presented, the identity of “who” filed the case is hidden behind a layer of administrative fraud. If Sadhana Tiwari did not sign the papers, but the court is now pressuring her to “pursue” it, we can identify the likely architects and the mechanism of this fraud:

1. The Likely “Shadow” Plaintiffs

The case was almost certainly filed by the Lekhpal and the Beneficiaries (Dayashankar and Hariprasad Mishra) acting in collusion.

• The Motive: By filing a case in Sadhana’s name, they create a legal record that acknowledges her existence only on their terms.
• The Trap: If she attends the court and “pursues” the case, she indirectly validates the fraudulent filing. If she doesn’t show up, they can get the case dismissed “for non-prosecution,” which they will then use as evidence to show that “Sadhana Tiwari was given a chance but has no real claim.

2. How the Filing Was Likely Executed

In Tehsil courts, a case can be “started” through:

• Impersonation: Someone else may have appeared or signed as Sadhana Tiwari before the Naib Tehsildar’s clerk.
• Blank Signatures: If the revenue staff obtained her signatures on blank papers previously under the guise of her “inheritance application,” they may have used those papers to manufacture a lawsuit.
• The “Vakalatnama” Fraud: To file a case, a lawyer must be appointed. Check whose name is on the Vakalatnama. That lawyer was paid by someone—finding out who paid that lawyer will reveal the true filer.

3. The Role of the Revenue Staff

The fact that you are receiving formal communications and calls on your mobile from the court or staff proves their direct involvement. Usually, the court does not beg a plaintiff to come; if a plaintiff doesn’t show up, the case is simply dismissed.

• The Pressure: Their repeated calls are an attempt to “regularize” the fraud. They need her to appear so they can say, “See, she is the one who filed it.”
• The Monitoring: This is happening under the “Monitoring of the Tehsildar.” This suggests the higher officials are aware that the original inheritance was botched and are using this fake case as a “remedy” to prevent a criminal FIR against themselves.

---

Critical Actionable Questions

To unmask the individual, you must demand the following through an Inspection of the Case File (Muvayna):

1. Who is the Advocate? Identify the lawyer who filed the case. Under the Bar Council rules, a lawyer cannot file a case without meeting the client.
2. Who “Identified” the Plaintiff? In every revenue suit, there is an “identifier” (usually a Lambardar or another villager) who signs saying, “I know this is Sadhana Tiwari.” That person has committed Perjury.
3. The Date of Filing: Compare the date this suit was filed with the date Sadhana filed her grievance (05/01/2025). If the suit was filed after her grievance, it is definitive proof of a “Retaliatory/Defensive” filing by the officials.

Recommendation

Do not attend the court as a “plaintiff” to pursue the case. Instead, Sadhana Tiwari should send a Registered Legal Notice to the Naib Tehsildar stating:

“I have not filed Suit [Number]. Any person appearing in my name is an impostor. I demand an immediate inquiry into the forgery of my signatures on the plaint and Vakalatnama.”

This adds a critical layer to the situation. If a local counsel was involved in submitting the inheritance application, it means there is a “Paper Trail” that can either be your strongest evidence or the source of the current confusion.

In the revenue courts of Uttar Pradesh, a lawyer’s involvement changes how the Tehsildar’s office handles the paperwork. Here is how you can navigate this:

---

1. The “Vakalatnama” Check

The most important document right now is the Vakalatnama (the document authorizing the lawyer to act on Sadhana Tiwari’s behalf).

• If the lawyer was hired only for the Inheritance Application: He was authorized to pursue the Section 32/33 Mutation (Virasat).
• The Potential Fraud: If that same lawyer (or someone else) used that authority to file a Contested Civil Suit without Sadhana’s specific consent, it is a breach of professional ethics and potentially a criminal act of “Cheating by Personation” under Section 319 of the BNS.

2. Why the Tehsildar is Calling “Multiple Times”

The repeated calls to the mobile number are a sign of Procedural Desperation.

• In a standard inheritance application, once the Registered Post is received, the Tehsildar must ask the Lekhpal for a report.
• If the Tehsildar has instead converted this into a “Suit,” he needs Sadhana Tiwari to appear in court to verify her signature on the plaint.
• The Strategy: They want her to show up so they can record her statement, which would legally “bind” her to the suit, making the matter subjudice and effectively killing the criminal complaint (Grievance No: GOVUP/E/2025/0001547).

3. The Distinction in Revenue Law

It is vital to distinguish what the counsel was hired to do.

• Mutation (Virasat): A summary proceeding where the Tehsildar acts as an administrator to update records.
• Regular Suit: A judicial proceeding where the Tehsildar acts as a judge. By forcing the latter, they are protecting the Lekhpal from “Omission of Duty” charges because they can claim, “The matter was complicated, so we made it a suit.”

---

Actionable Steps for Sadhana Tiwari and Yogi M P Singh

A. Issue a “Withdrawal of Authority”

If you suspect the local counsel is working in collusion with the Tehsil staff or the other party (Dayashankar/Hariprasad), Sadhana Tiwari must:

1. Send a formal letter to that counsel via WhatsApp/Email/Post terminating their services.
2. Inform the Naib Tehsildar that any suit filed by said counsel is unauthorized.

B. Demand the “Order Sheet”

The Order Sheet (Parcha Hukm) of the case Sadhana Tiwari vs. Ramdeia will show exactly how the case started.

• Did it start as a “Computerized Mutation” (which is the law since 2016)?
• Or did it start as a “Manual Suit”?
• If it is manual, it is a clear violation of the U.P. Revenue Code Manual, which mandates online processing of inheritance to prevent exactly this kind of fraud.

C. The “Section 32” Defense

In your next response to the Joint Secretary (Shri Arvind Mohan), emphasize:

“The applicant submitted a Report of Succession. The Tehsildar Lalganj has illegally converted this into a contested civil suit to shield the Lekhpal from the consequences of failing to perform a ‘Thorough Investigation’ into Class-1 heirs.”

---

The Next Step in Unmasking the “Filer”

The provided document, demandtehsil.pdf, constitutes a formal evidence package supporting Sadhana Tiwari’s claim to her ancestral property in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. It contains crucial legal records, including an IGRS disposal report, death certificates, family registers, and identity proofs that establish her as a legitimate Class-1 heir who has been omitted from revenue records^{1111111111111111111111}.

1. Verification of Legal Heirship

The most critical evidence in the file is the Family Register (Parivar Register) and the Death Certificate of her father, Siwakant Mishra.

• Death Certificate: Confirms that Siwakant Mishra (son of Shambhu Saran) passed away on October 22, 2001²²²².
• Family Register: Records Sadhana Devi (Tiwari) as the daughter of Siwakant³³³.
• Crucial Timeline: The documentation notes that Siwakant died on October 12, 2001 (recorded as 12-10-2001/22-10-2001 in different documents), confirming the applicant’s claim that her father predeceased her grandfather, thereby making her a direct representative heir^44444444.

2. Discrepancies in Revenue Records (Khatauni)

The Khatauni (Excerpts of Land Records) for the village Bhaisod Balay Pahad for the years 1419–1424 Fasli shows the names currently recorded for the ancestral plots (2397, 2398, 2485, etc.)^{5555555555555555555555555}.

• Current Recorded Holders: The names of Dayashankar, Hariprasad, and Shivshankar (sons of Shambhu Saran) and Ramdeia (widow of Shambhu Saran) are listed as co-sharers^{6666666666666666666666666}.
• The Omission: Despite the Family Register clearly listing Sadhana Tiwari, her name is missing from these land records^777777777. The records indicate a mutation order from June 19, 2007, which processed the inheritance but excluded her⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸.

3. IGRS Grievance and Official Evasion

The IGRS Disposal Report (6/8/14) reveals significant procedural resistance from local officials:

• Administrative Failure: The report admits that while Dayashankar and others are recorded, the name of the applicant’s father (Siwakant) was not processed correctly in the inheritance⁹.
• Official Excuse: The disposal officer claimed the applicant was “unable to provide necessary documents” at the time of the investigation and concluded by asking her to provide records according to rules¹⁰.
• Counter-Evidence: The applicant has since included her Aadhaar card (7137 3582 8204) and notarized affidavits to confirm her identity and address in Sureka Puram Colony, Mirzapur^{111111111111111111111111111111}.

4. Evidence of Improper “Proxy” Litigation

The document includes a Notarized Affidavit dated September 9, 2024, signed by Sadhana Tiwari^{121212121212121212}.

• Statement of Fact: In the affidavit, she declares she has no brothers or sisters and is the sole heir of her father^13131313.
• Demand for Correction: She explicitly requests the Tehsildar of Lalganj to issue an order for the mutation (Virasat) of her father’s name onto the land parcels (Gata numbers 2197, 2398, etc.)^14141414.
• Mailing Record: The file contains an India Post Registered Letter receipt (RU012593155IN) showing she sent these documents to the SDM Lalganj on September 9, 2024, which was delivered on September 10, 2024^{151515151515151515}.

Summary of Administrative “Anarchy”

This file confirms that while the Panchayat records (Family Register) acknowledge her as a daughter and heir, the Revenue records (Khatauni) were manipulated in 2007 to exclude her^{161616161616161616}. The Tehsil’s recent actions—calling her to pursue a “suit” rather than correcting the record—directly contradict her notarized request for a simple Section 32/33 mutation^17171717.

Based on the provided documents and the formal grievance record, here are the specific identification details, contact points, and digital footprints associated with this case:

Application & Registration Details

• Grievance Registration Number: GOVUP/E/2025/00015471.
• IGRS Reference Number: 60000 3401352².
• UP Revenue Record Number (ROR): 211982201803263³.
• Death Registration Number: 01 (issued 05/01/2024)⁴⁴⁴⁴.
• Aadhaar Number (Sadhana Tiwari): 7137 3582 8204⁵⁵⁵⁵.

Email Addresses & Contact Numbers

• Primary Officer Email: arvind.12574@gov.in (Shri Arvind Mohan, Joint Secretary)⁶.
• Official Helpdesk Email: help@uidai.gov.in (Aadhaar related)⁷.
• Officer Contact Number: 0522-2226350 (Chief Minister Secretariat)⁸.
• Aadhaar Helpline: 1947 or 1800 300 1947⁹.
• Mobile Numbers recorded in IGRS Reports: 9425035619 and 9770023796¹⁰.

Web Links & Portals

• Bhulekh (Land Records) Portal: http://164.100.230.206/bhulekh/app/tehsil/report_user/ROR¹¹.
• India Post Tracking: [suspicious link removed] (Used for tracking Registered Letter RU012593155IN)¹².
• UIDAI Official Website: www.uidai.gov.in¹³.

Official Addresses

• Joint Secretary Office: Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow¹⁴.
• Local Authority: Gram Panchayat Bhaisod Balay Pahad, Block Halia, Tehsil Lalganj, District Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh^15151515.

Would you like me to draft a follow-up email to arvind.12574@gov.in citing these specific registration numbers to demand an update on the grievance?