The Yogi Adityanath government’s land lease decisions are once again under public scrutiny, particularly in the temple town of Mirzapur. A newly filed RTI application alleges that the state not only overrode a local municipality’s own resolution to cancel a decades-old lease but also extended the lease for another 30 years at an astonishingly low rent of just Rs. 50 a year. This move is even more controversial given that the land’s market value runs into the billions. What follows, therefore, is a comprehensive breakdown of the allegations, the RTI trail, and the pressing questions that the Urban Development Department has yet to answer.

Yogi Adityanath Government’s Land Lease: The Lions Club Lease Controversy

The institutions meant to serve the people often protect the sanctity of public land. Nevertheless, the Yogi Adityanath government’s land lease decisions in Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh, suggest a troubling disconnect between local governance and state-level decision-making. At the heart of this controversy, moreover, is an RTI (Right to Information) application filed by activist Yogi M. P. Singh. The application alleges, in fact, a multi-billion rupee land scam involving the Lions Club and the Urban Development Department of Uttar Pradesh.

The case, in short, raises a fundamental question. When an autonomous local body demands the return of its land due to breach of contract, can the state government legally override that decision to favor a private entity?

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Breach of Public Trust

Decades ago, the Mirzapur City Municipality leased a prime piece of land to the Lions Club. Specifically, the lease had a noble, community-oriented purpose: developing a garden for the children of the general public. Under the agreement’s terms, in other words, the municipality entrusted this public asset to a private club so it could provide a service the municipality itself may have lacked the resources to maintain at the time.

However, the RTI application (Registration No: DOUDV/R/2025/60046) tells a different story on the ground. Indeed, forty years have passed since the original lease, yet the promised children’s garden still doesn’t exist. Instead of a public park, operators have allegedly converted the land into a hub for commercial activities — a direct violation of the lease terms.

The Yogi Adityanath Government’s Land Lease Decision vs. The Municipality

One of the most striking aspects of this case, therefore, is the reported conflict over the Yogi Adityanath government’s land lease decision. Specifically, it involves a disagreement between the Mirzapur Municipality and the State Government. Notably, the Municipality holds the title to the land. Consequently, it issued formal notices ordering the Lions Club to vacate the premises. This action was taken citing, in particular, the Lions Club’s failure to meet the lease conditions.

Furthermore, the applicant describes the Government of Uttar Pradesh’s response as “illegal, unconstitutional, and grossly unjustified.” According to the RTI application, the state allegedly bypassed the Municipality’s proposal to cancel the lease. Instead of reclaiming the land for public use, the state reportedly extended the lease for another 30 years, stretching the agreement to 2040. As a result, the department granted this extension despite leasing the land for a pittance — a mere Rs. 50 annually — while its market value is estimated to be in the billions.

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence of Corruption

The RTI applicant categorizes the evidence of corruption into two distinct brackets:

1. Direct Evidence: The physical absence of the promised garden and the documented commercial exploitation of the land for private gain.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: Meanwhile, the state’s decision to overlook the autonomy of the Mirzapur Municipality Board. By overriding a local autonomous body’s resolution, the state government has sparked suspicions that “good faith” was bought through illicit means or political pressure.

In short, the applicant argues that by extending the lease at such a nominal rate, the government is effectively subsidizing a private organization at the expense of the public exchequer and the local community’s needs.

---

Key Information Sought Under the RTI Act

The RTI application seeks five critical pieces of information from the Public Information Officer (PIO), Ambrish Kumar Srivastava. In order to bring transparency to this opaque transaction, it is essential to gather these details:

• Lease Extension Records: A copy of the official document that extended the lease for thirty years.
• The Overriding Rationale: Details of the internal communications and staff notes that led the state to supersede the Mirzapur Municipality’s proposal to cancel the lease.
• Administrative Accountability: Under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005, the applicant demands the specific reasons for rejecting a proposal that was in the “wide public interest.
• Financial Disclosures: A comparison of the fees charged to the Lions Club at the start of the lease versus the current rates.
• The Petitioner’s Influence: Copies of the communications the Lions Club or the Lions School management sent that prompted the government’s favorable decision.

The Legal and Ethical Stakes

This case, overall, highlights a significant tension in Indian administrative law. Under the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, municipalities are meant to be autonomous bodies. Therefore, when the state government intervenes in local land matters against the express will of the local board, it undermines the principle of decentralization.

Furthermore, using public land for commercial purposes under the guise of “charity” or “community service” is a classic hallmark of urban land scams. If the allegations hold true, in other words, the Lions Club isn’t only depriving Mirzapur’s children of a playground — it’s also profiting from a public asset while paying the government less than the price of a single meal per year.

Conclusion: A Call for Transparency

Overall, Yogi M. P. Singh’s RTI application is more than a request for documents; it’s a challenge to the accountability of the Urban Development Department. For a government that prides itself on “Zero Tolerance” for corruption, therefore, the Yogi Adityanath government’s land lease decision in the Mirzapur Lions Club case presents a litmus test.

So, will the department provide the reasons for overriding the local municipality, or will bureaucracy suppress the information behind its veils? As the RTI status remains “Received,” the public is now watching the PIO and the Nodal Officer to see whether the spirit of the RTI Act is upheld.

Meanwhile, the admission fees at the Lions School (Laldiggi and Bhujwa ki Chauki branches) in Mirzapur are a significant point of contention in the ongoing legal and administrative battle. The school management may argue it hasn’t increased tuition fees in a long time. Still, critics and legal experts view the Rs 30,000 admission fee as a “backdoor” method of commercialization, especially given the land’s history.

Below, therefore, is a structured justification and analysis of why this fee structure is being challenged as a core component of the alleged corruption:

---

1. The “Token Rent” vs. Commercial Fees

The primary legal challenge rests on the Conditions of the Lease.

• The Contrast: The Uttar Pradesh government extended the lease of 62,606 sq. feet of prime municipality land to the Lions Club for a nominal Rs 50 per year.
• The Justification: Specifically, non-profit entities providing social services to families with low income legally reserve such “throwaway” rates — such as a “Children’s Garden for the common public.”
• The Violation: However, charging a Rs 30,000 admission fee (plus monthly composite fees ranging from Rs 1,605 to Rs 3,810) is characteristic of a “Self-Financed Independent School.” Critics therefore argue that if the school charges market-rate fees, it should pay market-rate rent to the municipality, rather than a token Rs 50.

2. Violation of the “Non-Commercial” Clause

Under the Uttar Pradesh Self-Financed Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018, schools must use their income for educational purposes.

• Commercial Activity: RTI applicant Yogi M. P. Singh alleges the school has become a commercial enterprise. Specifically, he cites the high admission fee as evidence that the school isn’t catering to the “common children” or families with low income, as originally promised in the 1980 lease agreement.
• Infrastructure Loophole: The school might argue it hasn’t increased the monthly tuition fee. But a one-time high admission fee of Rs 30,000 acts as a barrier to entry for the local public, effectively turning public land into a private club for the affluent.

3. The “Book Bungling” and Hidden Costs

Allegations of forced purchases further complicate the claim that fees haven’t “increased”:

• Private Textbooks: Recent grievances (e.g., GOVUP/E/2025/0011156) allege the school pressures parents to buy expensive, non-NCERT books from specific vendors.
• Unfair Profit: For instance, in the Bhujwa ki Chauki branch alone, allegations surfaced of a Rs 16,00,000 “bungling” related to private book sales. This suggests that even if the “official” fee remains static, the “actual” cost to parents is inflated through other channels.

4. Legal Precedent and Section 4(1)(d)

The RTI application specifically invokes Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which requires the government to provide reasons for its administrative decisions.

• The Conflict: The Mirzapur Municipality Board officially resolved to cancel the lease because the school was operating commercially.
• The Question: If the school charges Rs 30,000 for admission, how did the Urban Development Department justify extending a “social service” lease at Rs 50/year? This discrepancy is the “smoking gun” in the corruption allegation.

---

Summary Table: Public Interest vs. Private Gain (Yogi Adityanath Government’s Land Lease)

Feature	Promised / Legal Condition	Factual Position (Alleged)
Land Rent	Rs 50 / Annum (Subsidized)	Market Value in Billions
Admission Fee	Accessible to “Common Public”	Rs 30,000 (High entry barrier)
Primary Usage	Children’s Garden / Social Aid	Commercial Schooling / Private Profit
Autonomy	Municipality’s right to cancel	State Govt. bypassed local board

---

Below are the official contact details, application identification, and web resources related to your RTI request and the ongoing land lease investigation.

📝 RTI Application & Appeal Summary

Detail TypePrimary RTI RequestFirst Appeal Details
Registration Number	DOUDV/R/2025/60046	DOUDV/A/2025/60053
Date of Filing	02/02/2025	20/03/2025
Applicant Name	Yogi M P Singh	Yogi M P Singh
Subject	Illegal Lease of Municipality Land	Non-compliance/Delay by PIO

---

🏛️ Concerned Public Authorities & Officers (Yogi Adityanath Government’s Land Lease)

The Urban Development Department (Nagar Vikas Vibhag) of the Government of Uttar Pradesh is the primary authority responsible for this case.

1. Public Information Officer (PIO) (Yogi Adityanath Government’s Land Lease)

• Name: Ambrish Kumar Srivastava (Section Officer, NV-6)
• Mobile: 9454419927
• Email: sonagarvikas6@gmail.com
• Office Address: Room No. 721, Bapu Bhawan, Lucknow – 226001.

2. Nodal Officer (RTI) (Yogi Adityanath Government’s Land Lease)

• Name: Sajivan
• Mobile: 9454419927
• Email: so.nagarvikas8@gmail.com

3. Urban Development Department (Higher Officials) (Yogi Adityanath Government’s Land Lease)

• Principal Secretary (Urban Development): Shri P. Guruprasad
• Direct Phone: 0522-2238699 / 2237161
• Email: psecup.urbandev@nic.in
• Address: 730-732, Bapu Bhawan, Lucknow.

4. Mirzapur Local Authority

• Municipality (Nagar Palika Parishad) Mirzapur
• Email: mnpmirzapur@gmail.com
• Website: nppmirzapur.com

---

🌐 Official Web Links

• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (Use this to track status or file second appeals).
• Urban Development Department Official Site: urbandevelopment.up.nic.in
• UP State Information Commission (UPSIC): upsic.up.gov.in
• Public Grievance Portal (Jansunwai): jansunwai.up.nic.in (For filing complaints against the delay).

---

⚠️ Critical Note for the Information Seeker (Yogi Adityanath Government’s Land Lease)

The Allahabad High Court order (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:13808), notably, suggests that the Lions School itself has initiated litigation (Writ – C No. 2445 of 2025). This makes it even more vital, therefore, to get your RTI replies in writing, since the High Court can use them as evidence that the lease extension encroached on the municipality’s independent powers.5:AHC:13808) suggests that the Lions School itself has initiated litigation (Writ – C No. 2445 of 2025). This makes it even more vital to get your RTI replies in writing, since the High Court can use them as evidence that the lease extension encroached on the municipality’s independent powers. limit for the RTI response has passed?