Justice Delayed: A Case Study of RTI Non-Compliance and Inheritance Corruption in Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as a landmark legislation to ensure transparency and hold public officials accountable. However, for Mrs. Sadhana Tiwari, a resident of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, the act has become a testament to administrative inertia. Her recent Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Registration Number: A-20250101163) highlights a systemic failure where both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) allegedly failed to perform their statutory duties.

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Question of Inheritance

At the heart of this legal battle is a dispute over ancestral property in the Lalganj Tehsil. Mrs. Tiwari’s case rests on a specific chronological fact: her father predeceased her grandfather. According to the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Mrs. Tiwari asserts she is a Class-1 heir.

When her grandfather passed away five years after her father, she should have legally inherited her father’s share. Instead, she alleges that during her childhood (she was approximately 10 years old at the time), her uncles—Dayashankar Mishra and Hariprasad Mishra—colluded with Tehsil officials to omit her name from the revenue records. This omission, she claims, was not a mere clerical error but a “criminal act of deep-rooted corruption.”

The RTI Trail: A Timeline of Silence

Frustrated by the lack of progress on the Jansunwai (Integrated Grievance Redressal System) portal, Mrs. Tiwari turned to the RTI Act to seek clarity. The timeline of her struggle is as follows:

• September 28, 2024: Filed RTI Application (DMOMR/R/2024/60106) with the PIO, Tehsildar Lalganj (Tarun Pratap).
• November 12, 2024: Filed First Appeal (DMOMR/A/2024/60059) with the SDM Lalganj (Gulab Chandra) after receiving no response from the PIO within the stipulated 30-day window.
• January 14, 2025: Filed Second Appeal with the State Information Commission after the First Appellate Authority also failed to provide a resolution or an order.

The appellant describes this silence as “insolence” toward the law and a “mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act.”

Core Demands: Seeking the “Right to Reason”

The appellant’s Second Appeal is not merely about receiving documents; it is about the “Right to Reason”—a principle upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Mrs. Tiwari has raised four critical points of inquiry:

1. Justification for Requirements: Why is the Tehsildar demanding 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 submitted to monitoring bodies like the Jansunwai portal?
3. Accountability: What action has been taken against the officials who provided misleading reports?
4. Inquiry into Collusion: Why has no inquiry been ordered into the alleged bribery and collusion between the staff of Tehsil Lalganj and the private parties (her uncles) who usurped the property?

Administrative Anarchy and the “Fear-Psychosis”

Mrs. Tiwari’s appeal contains a scathing critique of the local administration. She suggests that corruption is so “rampant” that no officer is willing to “bell the cat.” The appeal argues that by withholding information and ignoring grievances, the public authority is promoting anarchy and lawlessness.

The appellant points out a critical flaw in the current grievance redressal system: while the Chief Minister’s office monitors the Jansunwai portal, the actual reports are generated by the very officers (Tehsildars and Lekhpals) accused of the irregularities. This creates a conflict of interest where the “offender” is also the “investigator.”

Legal Implications of the Revenue Code 2006

The case brings to light the importance of Section 32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which deals with the mutation of names in the register of rights. Mrs. Tiwari’s argument is legally significant: since there is no “title dispute” (as she is a direct descendant), the inheritance process should be non-judicial and straightforward. The suggestion by officials that she seek a court remedy is viewed by the appellant as a tactic to delay justice and protect corrupt subordinates.

Conclusion: A Plea for Democratic Values

The Second Appeal filed on January 14, 2025, is now before the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow. Mrs. Tiwari’s prayer is simple: curb the “insolence” of the public authority and restore the citizenry’s confidence in democratic values.

This case serves as a reminder that the RTI Act is only as strong as its enforcement. When PIOs and FAAs ignore their duties, they don’t just withhold information—they actively shield potential corruption and deny the fundamental right to justice.

---

What happens next?

The State Information Commission (SIC) has the power to:

• 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.

This situation highlights a serious breakdown in the administrative and ethical duties of the local Revenue Department. When a Lekhpal (the primary land records officer) submits a report that excludes a legitimate Class-1 heir, it is not merely a clerical error; it is a foundational distortion of justice that facilitates the illegal transfer of property.

Here is a structured analysis of the legal and administrative implications of your case, focusing on 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 is the “eyes and ears” of the Tehsildar. Under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the process of PA-11 (undisputed succession) relies entirely on the Lekhpal’s verification of the deceased’s family tree.

• The Act of Exclusion: By failing to record your name despite your status as a Class-1 heir (the daughter of a predeceased son), the Lekhpal effectively “erased” your legal existence in the eyes of the state.
• Implied Collusion: Since the property was transferred to your uncles (the brothers of your late father), the exclusion suggests a deliberate conspiracy between the beneficiaries and the revenue staff to facilitate a fraudulent mutation.

2. Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating

The actions described go beyond a simple land dispute and 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 are entrusted with the protection of public records and the impartial application of law. Using that position to benefit one party at the cost of another constitutes a breach of that trust.
• Cheating (Section 318 BNS / 420 IPC): If the Lekhpal and your uncles dishonestly induced the Tehsildar’s office to register the property by concealing your identity, it is a clear case of cheating.
• Forgery of Records: Documenting a false family tree in official revenue registers is a grave offense involving the falsification of public records.

3. Administrative Accountability: The Tehsildar’s Role

While the Lekhpal files the report, the Tehsildar Lalganj is the approving authority. In your RTI appeal, your “Right to Reason” is critical here:

• The Tehsildar cannot simply hide behind a subordinate’s report.
• If a grievance was filed on the Jansunwai Portal, and the Tehsildar ignored the proof of your lineage, they are arguably participating in the cover-up. This is why you are seeking the “reason” for their changed stance in your Second Appeal.

4. Why This Is “Administrative Anarchy”

When the very system designed to protect land rights—the Revenue Department—is used to facilitate land grabbing through fraudulent reports, it creates a state of lawlessness.

• The Vulnerability Factor: The fact that you were a minor (10 years old) at the time of the initial fraud makes the actions of the staff even more predatory, as they reaped the benefit of a child’s inability to represent herself.
• The Non-Judicial Trap: By claiming this is a “title dispute” and telling you to go to court, the officers are attempting to legalize their fraud by forcing you into decades of litigation, rather than correcting their own documented error.

---

Strategy for Your Second Appeal Hearing

When you appear before the Information Commission (offline or online), emphasize these three points to the Commissioner:

1. Demand the “Inquiry Report”: Ask the Commission to direct the District Magistrate (DM) Mirzapur to conduct a formal inquiry into the Lekhpal’s initial report that excluded you.
2. Highlight the Fraud: State clearly that the PIO is withholding information because the requested documents would prove the criminal collusion between the Lekhpal and the illegal occupants.
3. Section 18(2) Power: Remind the Commission that they have the power to initiate an inquiry under the RTI Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that records are being suppressed to hide corruption.

For your record-keeping and follow-up regarding the Second Appeal and the alleged administrative misconduct in Lalganj, Mirzapur, here is the structured directory of all relevant application IDs, contact numbers, and web portals.

1. RTI & Second Appeal Identity

These are the specific identifiers you must quote 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)

---

2. Key Personnel Contact Directory (Mirzapur/Lalganj)

If you need to send a legal notice or a formal reminder, these are the current official contacts for the Revenue Department.

• 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

---

3. Essential Web Links & Portals

Use these links to track your case or file additional complaints regarding the “False Report” submitted by the Lekhpal.

• RTI Second Appeal Status:upsic.up.gov.in
  • Navigate to “Online Appeal/Complaint Status” and use your registration number.
• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal:jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • Use this to track previous grievances or file a new complaint specifically under the “Anti-Corruption Portal” or “Anti Bhu-Mafia Portal” regarding the fraudulent inheritance report.
• UP Bhulekh (Land Records):upbhulekh.gov.in
  • To check current Khatauni and verify if any changes were made based on the Lekhpal’s report.

---

4. Mobile Applications

For real-time tracking on your phone, you can download these from the Google Play Store:

• Jansunwai App: For tracking and filing complaints with the CM Office.
• RTI UP App: For managing RTI applications.

---

Summary of Alleged Offenders

You have identified the following individuals in your appeal as being part of the conspiracy/corruption. You should maintain this list for any police complaint (FIR) for “Criminal Breach of Trust”:

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 Lekhpal’s report)
5. Tehsildar (Final approving authority for mutation)

Would you like me to help you draft a specific “Notice of Demand” for the Tehsildar, warning him of legal action if the fraudulent inheritance report is not corrected immediately?

Asked for document to process inheritance now Tehsildar running away