The accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar officials in Uttar Pradesh remains one of the clearest tests of how seriously the state treats the Rule of Law. Specifically, when a Lekhpal ignores a valid court order for months, and the Tehsil Sadar offers no explanation, ordinary citizens are left with no recourse but silence and delay. Indeed, this pattern repeats across Mirzapur, where grievances are closed with vague remarks instead of real answers. Consequently, the State Information Commission has now stepped in, issuing Show Cause Notices and threatening fines under the RTI Act. Ultimately, restoring genuine accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar administration requires firm, time-bound action from the SDM, the District Magistrate, and the Chief Minister’s own office — not further bureaucratic buck-passing.

Accountability of Lekhpal and Tehsil Sadar: When the Tehsil Becomes a Hurdle to Justice

The accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar officials in Uttar Pradesh has come under sharp scrutiny. Indeed, a quiet but devastating crisis is unfolding in the state’s administrative machinery. Notably, bribes rarely drive this crisis. Instead, something more insidious drives it: administrative inertia and deliberate non-compliance of judicial orders. For example, Grievance Registration Number GOVUP/E/2025/0013414, involving the Tehsil Sadar in District Mirzapur, illustrates this problem clearly.

Generally, a court order marks the end point of a legal process built to deliver justice. However, when a Lekhpal (land records officer) fails to execute that order for months, and offers no explanation, the delay erodes the Rule of Law itself. As a result, fresh questions now surround the accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar staff more broadly.

The Anatomy of the Dispute: A Court Ignored

On September 13, 2024, the Court of the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate (ASDM) in Sadar, Mirzapur, issued a clear directive. Specifically, the case fell under a partition suit (Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code). In particular, it involved Atul Singh vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, concerning three plots of land in Village Babura.

Overall, the court’s order stated the following:

1. First, the plaintiffs and defendants each held a 1/3 share of the land.
2. Next, the court ordered the preparation of a Preliminary Decree.
3. Finally, and most critically, the court summoned the Lekhpal to submit the Fhaat (the formal division of shares on the ground).

Since then, six months have passed. Typically, in revenue administration, the Lekhpal serves as the essential link between the court’s paper decree and the reality on the ground. Because the Lekhpal has neither appeared nor submitted the required report, he has effectively paralyzed the proceedings. In short, this is a direct failure in the accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar officials tasked with enforcing the order.

Procrastination as a Form of Corruption

Generally, people view corruption as a financial transaction. However, the complainant, Yogi M. P. Singh, rightly argues that corruption has two faces: Direct and Circumstantial.

Specifically, undue delay and procrastination mark the hallmarks of circumstantial corruption. Indeed, in many administrative corridors, “silence” functions as a commodity. Similarly, when an official refuses to comply with an order, he creates a vacuum of uncertainty. Consequently, this vacuum often pressures citizens into seeking “alternative” ways to speed things up. Moreover, when an official gives neither a reason for delay nor information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, this silence reflects a “doubtful integrity.” Ultimately, that silence contradicts the Chief Minister’s pledge for a corruption-free Uttar Pradesh.

If courts cannot ensure compliance with their own orders in a time-bound manner, then how can they be expected to deliver justice to the people?

The Failure of the Grievance Redressal System

Above all, the most frustrating part of this case is the response — or lack of it — from higher authorities. Specifically, officials lodged the grievance on February 9, 2025. Then, they closed it just two weeks later, on February 25, 2025.

Notably, the official remarks for closing the case read: “The matter is related to the court.”

Essentially, this response is a classic case of administrative “buck-passing.” Admittedly, the court must decide the legal merits of the case. But, at the same time, the Lekhpal’s failure to follow a direct court order is a separate disciplinary matter. Additionally, by labeling the entire issue “sub-judice,” the executive branch sidesteps its duty to supervise its subordinates. Consequently, this “cryptic working style” lets local officials ignore judicial mandates under the guise of ongoing litigation. In effect, it traps citizens in a loop of hopelessness and undermines any genuine accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar administration.

The Human Cost: Harassment and Loss of Faith

For a resident of Village Babura, the Tehsil represents the face of the government. Importantly, when a Lekhpal acts with “arbitrariness and tyranny,” he doesn’t merely delay a file. Rather, he denies a family its right to property.

Accordingly, the complainant has labeled this experience as “Harassment by official.” In turn, this label reflects a deeper crisis in governance. Indeed, when the bureaucracy becomes a hurdle rather than a facilitator, the promise of Sushasan (Good Governance) remains a distant dream. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur, is not an isolated incident. Rather, it exemplifies a system where officials easily bypass accountability through bureaucratic jargon.

Restoring the Accountability of Lekhpal and Tehsil Sadar: The Path Forward

Therefore, to restore public trust, and to uphold the dignity of the judiciary, authorities urgently need to take several steps:

1. Fixing Individual Responsibility: First, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Sadar, Mirzapur, must conduct a time-bound inquiry into why the order dated 13.09.2024 went unheeded. Then, if the Lekhpal is found guilty of deliberate delay, the SDM must take disciplinary action.
2. Audit of Pending Compliance: Second, authorities should audit all ASDM and SDM court orders monthly. In this way, it would show how many await action from revenue staff (Lekhpals and Kanungos).
3. Digital Tracking of Court Mandates: Third, to prevent “lost files,” officials should track instructions given to Lekhpals through a digital dashboard. That way, higher authorities can see exactly where a delay is occurring.
4. Meaningful Grievance Resolution: Finally, the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and the Joint Secretary must ensure officials don’t close grievances with generic remarks. Specifically, if a complainant alleges non-compliance, the department must address the officer’s conduct, even while the case remains in court.

Escalation to the State Information Commission: A Test of Accountability

Subsequently, the accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar officials moved beyond the courtroom when the matter reached the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Specifically, this followed an RTI application seeking five points of information. First, the name and designation of the official who wrongly routed the grievance to the police department. Second, the reason for not forwarding it to the SDM Sadar, Mirzapur. Third, details of actions taken to ensure compliance with the court’s order. Fourth, the identity of the Chief Minister’s Office official who accepted what the complainant calls an “arbitrary and inconsistent” report. Finally, legible copies of documents previously uploaded to the Jansunwai portal, which had been unreadable.

Notably, the State Information Commissioner, Dr. Rajkumar Vishwakarma, has since taken a stern view of the delays. Specifically, in an initial order dated November 3, 2025, the Commission directed the SDM Sadar and the Tehsildar Sadar to jointly furnish the requested information in a table format. Additionally, they were told to present an affidavit of their actions, either in person or via video conferencing.

However, the officials neither complied nor appeared at the hearing. As a result, the Commission issued a Show Cause Notice on December 11, 2025. Consequently, the Commission has warned that under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, responsible officials could face a fine of ₹250 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25,000. Finally, a hearing has been scheduled for January 15, 2026, where officials must appear with the requested information and a written explanation for the delay. In many ways, this is the latest test of whether real accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar administration will follow.

Investigation Discrepancies

Meanwhile, a police investigation report dated May 21, 2025, and signed by Vivek Jawla (Circle Officer City, Mirzapur), acknowledged the land dispute and the pending case. However, the complainant alleges that this report was “arbitrary.” In fact, it attempted to shift a revenue matter — court order compliance — into police jurisdiction. In effect, this sidesteps administrative accountability altogether.

Overall, the Information Commission’s active involvement suggests something important. Namely, the administrative “buck-passing” — where the executive branch labels judicial mandates “sub-judice” or “police matters” — is now being formally challenged.

Specifically, under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and the RTI Act, 2005, a Lekhpal carries an obligatory duty to comply with court orders. Additionally, he must provide reasons for any administrative delay to the information seeker.

1. Obligatory Duty of the Lekhpal

Generally, the Lekhpal holds a statutory responsibility to execute orders passed by Revenue Courts, particularly in matters of land partition and demarcation.

• Execution of Kurra (Partition): Specifically, in a suit for division of holdings under Section 116, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) must have the Kurra (formal division) prepared through the Lekhpal, once a preliminary decree is ready.
• Mandatory Timeline: By law, the Lekhpal must submit the Kurra report within one month of receiving the order.
• Legal Responsibility: Consequently, failure to comply with judicial directives is a serious breach of administrative discipline. Indeed, wilful disobedience of any court order amounts to Contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Obligation to Provide Reasons for Delay

Generally, public officials cannot act arbitrarily. Rather, they must stay transparent about their decision-making processes.

• RTI Transparency: Specifically, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, authorities must furnish information on the “procedure followed in the decision-making process.” This, in turn, includes reasons for administrative inaction or delays.
• Accountability: Consequently, if an order remains uncomplied with beyond six months, officials must record the reason in writing.
• Penalties for Evasion: Additionally, Public Information Officers (PIOs) who fail to give reasons, or delay information, can face penalties up to ₹25,000. In this case, notably, the State Information Commission has already issued a Show Cause Notice. Furthermore, it has warned of a daily fine of ₹250 for continued non-compliance.

Summary of Legal Standing

Aspect	Legal Obligation	Relevant Law
Duty to Comply	Must submit reports (e.g., Kurra) within 1 month.	U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
Reason for Delay	Must record and provide reasons if exceeding 6 months.	U.P. Revenue Code & RTI Act
Consequence	Can be charged with Contempt of Court or fined by CIC/SIC.	Contempt of Courts Act; RTI Act

Overall, the ongoing delay, now over one year without a recorded reason, directly violates the U.P. Revenue Code Rules. Additionally, it breaches the principles of natural justice, which demand reasoned, non-arbitrary administrative action. Once again, therefore, this underscores the fragile accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar officials in this system.

Circumstantial Evidence and the Case for Corruption

Notably, the circumstantial evidence in this case offers a powerful, legally recognized tool for proving corruption. Specifically, in legal terms, circumstantial evidence refers to facts that, taken together, point to a logical conclusion of guilt or misconduct.

Accordingly, the following circumstances build a clear chain of evidence against the Lekhpal:

• Unreasonable Delay (Procrastination): The court passed the order on September 13, 2024. Since then, it has remained unexecuted for over a year. Because the law mandates a 30-day window for such reports, this “undue delay” is a primary ingredient of corruption.
• Silence and Lack of Transparency: Similarly, the authorities’ failure to explain the non-compliance, or to answer RTI queries, suggests a deliberate attempt to hide the truth.
• The Bribe Demand Context: Meanwhile, the demand for ₹10,000, followed by a stoppage of work, supplies the “motive.” Notably, work stopped exactly when the complainant refused the full amount.
• Administrative Evasion: Additionally, the State Information Commission noted that the SDM and Tehsildar ignored summons and failed to provide information. This, in turn, indicates a systemic effort to shield the subordinate official.
• Misleading Investigation Reports: Finally, the Circle Officer’s report (Vivek Jawla), dated May 21, 2025, categorized a judicial non-compliance matter as a simple “land dispute.” This, therefore, serves as evidence of an attempt to misdirect the inquiry.

Legal Recognition of Circumstantial Evidence

Type of Evidence	Application to This Case
Direct Evidence	The oral demand for a ₹10,000 bribe.
Circumstantial Evidence	The 15-month delay in executing the court order following the bribe refusal.
Legal Standing	The Supreme Court of India has held that corruption can be proved through circumstantial evidence even if the direct demand cannot be “trapped.”

The “Jungle Raj” and Accountability

As the complainant noted in the grievance, the “arbitrary and inconsistent” reports from the Tehsildar and Police reflect administrative anarchy. Specifically, the Lekhpal ignored a court order to extract money. Now, therefore, the courts and the Information Commission are actively addressing this “serious breach of administrative discipline” through Show Cause Notices and potential fines. Ultimately, this is the clearest signal yet that the accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar officials can no longer be avoided.

Misuse of Criminal Provisions in a Civil Dispute (Accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar)

In this case, notably, the police used Section 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. Essentially, this appears to be an unjustified conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal one.

Admittedly, these sections exist to prevent a “breach of peace.” However, the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court have repeatedly ruled against using them as a substitute for civil law enforcement, or to harass parties in a property dispute.

Why the Police Action Is Unjustified (Accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar)

Overall, the imposition of these sections is legally questionable here, for several reasons:

• Misuse in Civil Matters: Specifically, the Supreme Court has recently slammed the Uttar Pradesh Police for a “complete breakdown of rule of law.” This, notably, stems from converting civil property disputes into criminal cases.
• Preventing Justice, Not Crime: Since a valid court order, dated 13.09.2024, already governs the partition, the administration’s primary duty is to execute that order. Thus, it should not book the parties for potential breach of peace.
• The “Mala Fide” Factor: Additionally, the complainant has already alleged that the delay stems from a ₹10,000 bribe demand. In this context, therefore, the police report (Challani) may function as a pressure tool, rather than a genuine peace-keeping measure.
• Procedural Failures: Furthermore, High Court rulings stress that authorities cannot initiate proceedings under these sections without an actual, imminent danger of breach of peace. Notably, old incidents, or existing civil disputes, are not sufficient grounds.

Legal Remedies Against 107/116 Proceedings

Legal Provision	Action You Can Take
Section 111 Cr.P.C.	The Magistrate must give you the “substance of information” used against you. You can challenge this if it only mentions the civil land dispute.
Section 482 Cr.P.C.	You can approach the Allahabad High Court to quash proceedings that are bad in law or an abuse of process.
Section 116(6) Cr.P.C.	If the inquiry is not completed within 6 months, proceedings stand terminated unless special reasons are recorded.

Summary of the Situation

Essentially, the police report by Vivek Jawla mischaracterized the non-compliance of a court order as a “land dispute.” As a result, the State Information Commission has challenged it. Ultimately, the Commission’s decision to issue a Show Cause Notice to the SDM and Tehsildar shows something clearly: the administrative delay, and the resulting police action, are being treated as a failure of governance. In short, this is a further test of the accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar officials in Mirzapur.

Key Contacts and Reference Numbers (Accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar)

For the ongoing RTI appeal (No. S-01/A/1390/2025), and the upcoming hearing, the following contacts and resources are relevant.

Key Administrative & Legal Contacts (Mirzapur) (Accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar)

Office / Designation	Mobile / CUG No.	Office Phone	Email Address
District Magistrate, Mirzapur	9454417567	05442-252480	dmmir@up.nic.in
Divisional Commissioner, Mirzapur	9454417505	05442-252986	commmir@nic.in
SP Mirzapur (Somen Verma)	9454400299	05442-252578	spmzr-up@nic.in
CO City, Mirzapur (Vivek Jawla)	9454401590	—	co-city.mi@up.gov.in
CO Sadar, Mirzapur	9454401591	—	co-sadar.mi@up.gov.in

State Information Commission (SIC) Lucknow (Accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar)

• Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Case Tracking / RTI Status: rtionline.up.gov.in
• General Inquiry Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
• Penalty Section (Relevant for the Show Cause): penalty-section.upic@up.gov.in
• Phone (SIC Office): 0522-2724930

Anti-Corruption & Chief Minister’s Office

Specifically, this case involves allegations of a bribe demand (₹10,000). So, these departments are critical: (Accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar)

• Anti-Corruption Org (Mirzapur Unit): Mobile 9454402487, Email aco-mirzapur.mi@up.gov.in, UP Control Room 9454402484
• Chief Minister’s Office (Public Grievance): Email cmup@nic.in, Joint Secretary (Arvind Mohan) 0522-2226350, Jansunwai Portal, Technical Email jansunwai-up@gov.in

Reference Registration Numbers (Accountability of Lekhpal and tehsil sadar)

Court Case Number (Revenue): T202216530107209

Grievance Registration Number: GOVUP/E/2025/0013414

RTI Appeal Number: S-01/A/1390/2025