The Mirage of Transparency: When Revenue Laws and RTI Collide at the Tehsil Level

The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code of 2006 was envisioned as a landmark piece of legislation designed to simplify land administration, reduce litigation, and empower the common citizen. However, the reality at the “Tehsil” level—the primary interface between the farmer and the state—often tells a different story.

Recent developments in a case involving the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sadar in Mirzapur provide a startling case study on how administrative technicalities are used to bypass the Right to Information (RTI) Act, turning a concluded legal matter into a “litigation-heavy” maze.

The Core Dispute: A Quest for Boundary Accountability

At the heart of this issue is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. This section pertains to the “Demarcation of Boundaries” (Paimash). In this specific instance, the petitioner sought the intervention of the SDM to legally define the boundaries of a plot of land.

The process appeared to follow the legal script:

1. The petitioner deposited a ₹1000 fee into the government treasury for the service.
2. The Revenue Inspector submitted a report on 15th July 2024.
3. The SDM Sadar passed a final order on 12th August 2024, accepting the report and ordering the file to be sent to the record room.

Under any standard legal interpretation, the storage of a file in the “record room” signifies that the matter is no longer sub judice (under judicial consideration). The case is closed; the decision is public record.

The RTI Roadblock: “Matter of the Court”

Despite the conclusion of the case, the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the Tehsildar’s office recently denied an RTI request seeking basic details about the process. The PIO’s justification? That the matter “concerns the court.”

This defense is a common but often flawed tactic. Under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act 2005, information is only exempted if it has been “expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law” or if disclosure constitutes “contempt of court.” Since the SDM’s court had already decided the matter on August 12, and the RTI was filed on August 15, the “pending litigation” argument holds no water.

Transparency vs. Hidden Procedures

The information requested by the appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, strikes at the core of administrative accountability:

• Identification of Staff: Who were the specific officials who conducted the boundary measurement?
• The Map (The “Paimash” Record): If a boundary is decided, a map is the integral physical proof. Withholding the map suggests that the measurement may not have been conducted according to the law.
• Proof of Service: If the state charges a ₹1000 fee for a service, the citizen has a right to know exactly what service was rendered.

The “Litigation-Heavy” Trap

The appellant’s objection highlights a painful irony: the Revenue Code was meant to reduce the burden on citizens, but it has instead multiplied their problems.

Without the assistance of an advocate, the average citizen is often unable to decode the bureaucratic language used to deny information. When a PIO cites “court proceedings” as a blanket shield, it forces the citizen into a new cycle of appeals—first to the First Appellate Authority and then to the State Information Commission. This turns a simple request for a map into a multi-year legal battle.

The Right to Reason

A crucial point raised in this dispute is the “Right to Reason.” The Indian Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that any administrative or quasi-judicial body must provide clear, logical reasons for its decisions.

To deny information without explaining how it violates the RTI Act or which specific court order prohibits its release is a violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case, the PIO’s refusal to provide a copy of a closed order from the record room seems less like a legal necessity and more like an attempt to avoid scrutiny.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The objection currently before the Information Commissioner, Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam, is not just about one piece of land in Mirzapur. It is about whether the “Digital India” and “Transparent Governance” initiatives can penetrate the thick walls of the local Tehsil.

If a citizen pays a government fee, they are not just a “petitioner”—they are a consumer of a government service. They are entitled to:

1. The names of the officials who performed the work.
2. The technical documents (maps) resulting from that work.
3. A clear explanation if that information is withheld.

Until the State Information Commission penalizes the arbitrary denial of information in “closed” revenue cases, the Revenue Code of 2006 will continue to be a tool for litigation rather than a vehicle for justice.

This persistent denial by the PIO is a classic example of “administrative stonewalling.” Even though the case is no longer active, officials often use the term sub judice as a generic shield to avoid transparency.

However, from a legal standpoint, the PIO’s position is deeply flawed. Here is a breakdown of why their “sub judice” excuse fails under the RTI Act and how you can counter it.

---

1. The “Sub Judice” Myth vs. Section 8(1)(b)

The RTI Act does not contain the word “sub judice” as a ground for refusing information. The only court-related exemption is under Section 8(1)(b), which states that information can be withheld only if:

• It has been expressly forbidden to be published by a court or tribunal.
• Its disclosure would constitute contempt of court.

Since the SDM Sadar passed the final order on 12th August 2024 and sent the file to the record room, there is no “express stay” or “prohibition” on sharing the details. Merely being a court matter is not enough to deny information.

2. Status of “Decided Cases”

The Central Information Commission (CIC) and various High Courts (e.g., MCD vs. R.K. Jain) have consistently ruled that:

“The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”

Once a verdict is reached (as in your case on Aug 12), the records become public documents. Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, public authorities are actually required to proactively disclose the procedure and the decisions they make.

3. Accountability for the ₹1000 Fee

Since you deposited a fee for the Paimash (demarcation) under Section 24, the revenue staff acted as public servants providing a statutory service.

• The Map: Under Rule 22(12) of the UP Revenue Code Rules 2016, if a report is confirmed, boundary pillars must be fixed and a report submitted. This report and the accompanying map are integral parts of the record.
• Transparency: You have a right to know who performed the service you paid for. Names and designations of public staff are not “personal information” when they are performing official duties.

---

Comparison: PIO’s Claim vs. Legal Reality

PIO’s Stance	Legal Reality (RTI Act 2005)
“Information denied as the matter concerns the court.”	Invalid. No such blanket exemption exists under Section 8.
“Matter is sub judice.”	Irrelevant. Even if it were pending, it’s disclosable unless specifically banned by a judge.
“File is in the record room.”	Stronger Right. Public records in the record room are more accessible, not less.

---

Recommended Strategy for your Objection

When you present your case to the Information Commissioner (Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam), emphasize these three points:

1. Temporal Fact: The RTI was filed on 15th August, after the judicial order of 12th August. There was no “pending” litigation at the time of the request.
2. Lack of Specificity: The PIO has failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” or cite a specific court order that forbids the disclosure of the Paimash map or staff names.
3. Public Record Act: Remind the court that files in the record room fall under the Public Records Act 1993, and the RTI Act has an overriding effect (Section 22) over other laws that might restrict access.

For your case involving the UP State Information Commission (UPSIC) and the Sadar Tehsil, Mirzapur, here are the comprehensive contact details and digital links you need to pursue your objection.

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

Since your case is listed in Court 9 before Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam, these are the specific channels for your appeals and objections.

• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Court 9 Email (Direct): hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• Registrar Email: registrar-upic@up.gov.in
• Phone Number: 0522-2724930
• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010

---

2. District Administration Mirzapur (Sadar Tehsil)

These are the authorities responsible for the initial denial of information.

Authority	Mobile / CUG	Email ID
District Magistrate (DM)	+91-9454417567	dm-mi@up.gov.in
SDM Sadar (Mirzapur)	+91-9454416196	teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
Tehsildar Sadar	+91-9454417672	tehsilsadar025@gmail.com
RTI Cell (Collectorate)	—	dmomr-up@nic.in

---

3. Uttar Pradesh Revenue Department

For systemic complaints regarding the implementation of the Revenue Code 2006:

• Board of Revenue Portal: bor.up.nic.in
• Revenue Section 10 Email: revenuesection10@gmail.com
• Revenue Section 11 Email: revenuesection11@gmail.com

---

4. Important Web Links for RTI Tracking

• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (Use this for filing and tracking status).
• UPSIC Case Status: upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/search_case (To track the progress of your hearing in Court 9).
• UP Government Jan Sunwai (IGRS): jansunwai.up.nic.in (For general complaints against the PIO/Tehsil staff).

Next Step for You

When sending your objection via email to hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in, ensure you mention your Reference Number S09/A/2175/2024 in the subject line. This ensures the commission’s staff can immediately attach your objection to your physical file before the hearing.

Would you like me to draft a concise “Point-wise Rejoinder” that you can copy and paste into an email to these authorities?