Sadhana Tiwari’s fight for justice exposes RTI non-compliance and alleged inheritance fraud in Mirzapur. Her journey began when she discovered discrepancies in property documents that suggested fraudulent activities orchestrated by powerful individuals in her community. Despite numerous attempts to seek information through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Tiwari faced significant bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of transparency, highlighting a systemic issue of non-compliance with the RTI provisions. Frustrated but undeterred, she decided to go public with her case, rallying support from fellow citizens and advocacy groups who share her commitment to transparency and justice. As her story unfolds, it serves as a critical reminder of the challenges faced by ordinary citizens in their quest for accountability and the protection of their rights. Read the full timeline and case details.

Sadhana Tiwari’s Fight for Justice: A Case Study of RTI Non-Compliance and Inheritance Corruption in Mirzapur

Sadhana Tiwari’s fight for justice began with a promise the Right to Information Act, 2005 never kept. The Act aimed to bring transparency and hold public officials accountable. However, for Mrs. Sadhana Tiwari, a resident of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, it has instead become a symbol of administrative inertia. Indeed, her recent Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Registration Number: A-20250101163) exposes a systemic failure. Both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) allegedly ignored their statutory duties.

The Genesis of Sadhana Tiwari’s Legal Battle: A Question of Inheritance

At the heart of Sadhana Tiwari’s fight for justice lies a dispute over ancestral property in the Lalganj Tehsil. Her case rests on one chronological fact: her father died before her grandfather. Consequently, under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Mrs. Tiwari claims Class-1 heir status.

Therefore, when her grandfather passed away five years after her father, she should have inherited her father’s share. Instead, she alleges that her uncles, Dayashankar Mishra and Hariprasad Mishra, colluded with Tehsil officials during her childhood. She was about 10 years old at the time. Together, they allegedly omitted her name from the revenue records. As a result, she calls this omission a “criminal act of deep-rooted corruption,” not a clerical error.

Sadhana Tiwari’s RTI Trail: A Timeline of Silence

The Jansunwai (Integrated Grievance Redressal System) portal produced little progress. So Mrs. Tiwari turned to the RTI Act instead, marking a decisive turn in her fight for justice. Her struggle followed this timeline:

• September 28, 2024: She filed an RTI Application (DMOMR/R/2024/60106) with the PIO, Tehsildar Lalganj (Tarun Pratap).
• November 12, 2024: The PIO gave no response within the 30-day statutory window. So she filed a First Appeal (DMOMR/A/2024/60059) with the SDM Lalganj (Gulab Chandra).
• January 14, 2025: The First Appellate Authority also failed to resolve the matter. So she filed a Second Appeal with the State Information Commission.

Altogether, the appellant calls this silence “insolence” toward the law. She calls it a “mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act.

Core Demands in Sadhana Tiwari’s Quest for Justice: Seeking the “Right to Reason”

The Second Appeal seeks more than documents. It invokes the “Right to Reason,” a principle the Supreme Court of India upholds. Mrs. Tiwari raises four critical questions:

1. Justification for Requirements: Why does the Tehsildar demand specific documents to process inheritance under Section 32 of the Revenue Code 2006, when the lineage is clear?
2. Contradictory Reports: Why has the Tehsildar changed his stance in reports to monitoring bodies such as the Jansunwai portal?
3. Accountability: Moreover, what action have officials taken against staff who filed misleading reports?
4. Inquiry into Collusion: Finally, why has no one ordered an inquiry into the alleged bribery between Tehsil Lalganj staff and her uncles, who she says usurped the property?

Administrative Anarchy and the “Fear-Psychosis” Behind the Fight for Justice

Furthermore, Mrs. Tiwari’s appeal sharply criticizes the local administration. She says corruption runs so “rampant” that no officer will “bell the cat.” Thus, she argues that withholding information and ignoring grievances promotes anarchy and lawlessness — the very forces her fight for justice pushes back against.

She also flags a structural flaw in the grievance system. The Chief Minister’s office monitors the Jansunwai portal, but the accused officers — Tehsildars and Lekhpals — write the very reports that office reviews. This creates a conflict of interest: the “offender” also acts as the “investigator.”

Legal Implications of the Revenue Code 2006 for Sadhana Tiwari’s Case

Meanwhile, the case highlights Section 32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. This section governs the mutation of names in the register of rights. Mrs. Tiwari’s argument carries legal weight: since she is a direct descendant, no “title dispute” exists. The inheritance process should therefore stay non-judicial and simple. Yet officials keep telling her to seek a court remedy. She views this as a tactic — one designed to delay justice and shield corrupt subordinates.

Conclusion: A Plea for Democratic Values

Ultimately, the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow now holds the Second Appeal filed on January 14, 2025. In short, Sadhana Tiwari’s fight for justice comes down to one simple prayer: curb the public authority’s “insolence” and restore citizens’ confidence in democratic values.

In summary, this case proves that the RTI Act works only as well as its enforcement. When PIOs and FAAs ignore their duties, they don’t just withhold information. They also shield potential corruption and deny the fundamental right to justice.

---

What Happens Next in Sadhana Tiwari’s Fight for Justice?

The State Information Commission (SIC) can:

• Impose penalties on the PIO (₹250 per day, up to ₹25,000).
• Direct the PIO to provide the requested information free of cost.
• Recommend disciplinary action against the officers involved.

Overall, this case exposes a serious breakdown in the Revenue Department’s administrative and ethical duties. When a Lekhpal (the primary land records officer) excludes a legitimate Class-1 heir from a report, that is no clerical slip. Instead, it distorts justice at its foundation and enables the illegal transfer of property.

Below, therefore, is a structured look at the legal and administrative implications behind Sadhana Tiwari’s fight for justice — specifically, the alleged “criminal breach of trust” and “collusion.”

1. The Lekhpal’s Report: The Root of the Malpractice

In the Uttar Pradesh revenue hierarchy, the Lekhpal acts as the Tehsildar’s “eyes and ears.” Under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the PA-11 process (undisputed succession) depends entirely on the Lekhpal verifying the deceased’s family tree.

• The Act of Exclusion: The Lekhpal failed to record her name despite her Class-1 heir status as the daughter of a predeceased son. This effectively erased her legal existence in the eyes of the state.
• Implied Collusion: The property went to her uncles — her late father’s brothers. This points to a deliberate conspiracy between the beneficiaries and the revenue staff to push through a fraudulent mutation.

2. Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating

Moreover, these actions go beyond a simple land dispute. They enter the realm of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), formerly the Indian Penal Code:

• Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 316 BNS / 406 IPC): Public servants must protect public records and apply the law impartially. Using that position to favor one party over another breaches that trust.
• Cheating (Section 318 BNS / 420 IPC): Similarly, if the Lekhpal and her uncles concealed her identity to dishonestly induce the Tehsildar’s office to register the property, that constitutes cheating.
• Forgery of Records: Likewise, documenting a false family tree in official revenue registers amounts to a grave offense — the falsification of public records.

3. Administrative Accountability: The Tehsildar’s Role in Sadhana Tiwari’s Fight for Justice

The Lekhpal files the report, but the Tehsildar Lalganj approves it. This is exactly why the “Right to Reason” at the center of Sadhana Tiwari’s fight for justice matters:

• The Tehsildar cannot simply hide behind a subordinate’s report.
• Someone filed a grievance on the Jansunwai Portal. If the Tehsildar ignored the proof of lineage anyway, he arguably took part in the cover-up. That’s precisely why the appellant demands his reasons in the Second Appeal.

4. Why This Is “Administrative Anarchy”

The Revenue Department exists to protect land rights. When officials instead use it to facilitate land grabbing through fraudulent reports, lawlessness follows.

• The Vulnerability Factor: Mrs. Tiwari was only 10 years old when the alleged fraud began. That makes the staff’s conduct even more predatory — they exploited a child’s inability to represent herself.
• The Non-Judicial Trap: Officials call this a “title dispute” and tell her to go to court. Instead of fixing their own documented error, they appear to be trying to legitimize the fraud by trapping her in decades of litigation.

---

Strategy for Sadhana Tiwari’s Second Appeal Hearing

At the Information Commission hearing — whether offline or online — three points deserve emphasis:

1. Demand the “Inquiry Report”: First, ask the Commission to direct the District Magistrate (DM) Mirzapur to formally investigate the Lekhpal’s original report.
2. Highlight the Fraud: Next, state plainly that the PIO withholds information because the requested documents would prove collusion between the Lekhpal and the illegal occupants.
3. Invoke Section 18(2) Power: Finally, remind the Commission it can open an inquiry under the RTI Act whenever reasonable grounds suggest officials are suppressing records to hide corruption.

---

RTI & Second Appeal Identity (Sadhana Tiwari’s Fight for Justice)

Quote these identifiers in all future correspondence with the State Information Commission:

Document Type	Registration Number	Date of Filing
RTI Application	DMOMR/R/2024/60106	28/09/2024
First Appeal	DMOMR/A/2024/60059	12/11/2024
Second Appeal	A-20250101163	14/01/2025
Commission ID	UPICR20240007679	(Internal Reference)

Key Personnel Contact Directory (Mirzapur/Lalganj) (Sadhana Tiwari’s Fight for Justice)

Use these official contacts for legal notices or formal reminders:

• PIO (Tehsildar Lalganj): Tarun Pratap — Mobile: 9454416818; Email: teh-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
• FAA (SDM Lalganj): Gulab Chandra (Second) — Mobile: 9454416813; Email: sdm-Lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
• District Magistrate (Mirzapur): Office Phone: 05442-252200 / 9454417578 (CUG)
• UP Information Commission (Lucknow): Office Phone: 0522-2724930; Helpdesk Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in / jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in

Mobile Applications (Sadhana Tiwari’s Fight for Justice)

Download these apps from the Google Play Store for real-time tracking:

• Jansunwai App: Track and file complaints with the CM Office.
• RTI UP App: Manage RTI applications.

---

Summary of Alleged Offenders (Sadhana Tiwari’s Fight for Justice)

For any police complaint (FIR) alleging “Criminal Breach of Trust,” keep this list of named individuals:

1. Dayashankar Mishra (Uncle/Beneficiary)
2. Hariprasad Mishra (Uncle/Beneficiary)
3. Lekhpal (Lalganj Tehsil – Field Officer who filed the false report)
4. Revenue Inspector (Approving authority for the Lekhpal’s report)
5. Tehsildar (Final approving authority for mutation)

---

Sadhana Tiwari’s fight for justice continues before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Follow this case for updates as the Second Appeal progresses.

References & Useful Portals

UP Bhulekh — Land Records

Right to Information Act, 2005 — official text

RTI Act, 2005 — Right to Information Portal

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), BNSS & BSA — Ministry of Home Affairs

RTI Second Appeal Status — UP State Information Commission

UP RTI Online Portal

Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal

Related: Allegations of Land Usurpation in Mirzapur Case