The Crisis of Non-Compliance: When the Tehsil Becomes a Hurdle to Justice

In the heart of Uttar Pradesh’s administrative machinery, a quiet but devastating crisis is unfolding. It is not always characterized by the overt exchange of bribes, but rather by something more insidious: administrative inertia and the deliberate non-compliance of judicial orders. The case of Grievance Registration Number GOVUP/E/2025/0013414, involving the Tehsil Sadar in District Mirzapur, serves as a poignant case study. When a court passes an order, it is the culmination of a legal process designed to provide justice. However, when a Lekhpal (land records officer) fails to execute that order for months without explanation, the very foundation of the Rule of Law begins to crumble.

---

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 in a partition suit (Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code). The case, Atul Singh vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, involved three specific plots of land in Village Babura.

The court’s order was explicit:

1. It determined that the plaintiffs and defendants each held a 1/3 share of the land.
2. It ordered the preparation of a Preliminary Decree.
3. Critically, it summoned the Lekhpal to submit the Fhaat (the formal division of shares on the ground).

Six months have since passed. In the realm of revenue administration, the Lekhpal is the essential link between the court’s paper decree and the reality of the land. By failing to appear or submit the required report, the Lekhpal has effectively paralyzed the legal proceedings.

---

Procrastination as a Form of Corruption

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

Undue delay and procrastination are the hallmarks of circumstantial corruption. In many administrative corridors, “silence” is a commodity. By not complying with an order, an official creates a vacuum of uncertainty. This uncertainty often pressures the common citizen into seeking “alternative” ways to expedite the process. When an official provides neither a reason for delay nor information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, it reflects a “doubtful integrity” that 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

The most frustrating aspect of this case is the response—or lack thereof—from the higher authorities. The grievance was lodged on February 9, 2025, and closed just two weeks later on February 25, 2025.

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

This is a classic example of administrative “buck-passing.” While the legal merits of the case are indeed before the court, the administrative failure of the Lekhpal to follow a direct court order is a disciplinary matter. By labeling the entire issue as “sub-judice,” the executive branch abdicates its responsibility to supervise its subordinates. This “cryptic working style” allows local officials to ignore judicial mandates under the guise of ongoing litigation—a paradox that traps the citizen in a loop of hopelessness.

---

The Human Cost: Harassment and Loss of Faith

For a resident of Village Babura, the Tehsil is the face of the government. When a Lekhpal acts with “arbitrariness and tyranny,” it isn’t just a file that is delayed; it is a family’s right to their property that is denied.

The complainant has labeled this experience as “Harassment by official.” This reflects a deeper crisis in governance. When the bureaucracy becomes a hurdle rather than a facilitator, the promise of Sushasan (Good Governance) remains a distant dream. The lack of transparency in Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur, is not an isolated incident; it is symptomatic of a system where accountability is easily bypassed through bureaucratic jargon.

---

The Path Forward: Restoring Accountability

To restore public trust and uphold the dignity of the judiciary, several steps are urgently required:

1. Fixing Individual Responsibility: The Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Sadar, Mirzapur, must conduct a time-bound inquiry into why the order dated 13.09.2024 was ignored. If the Lekhpal is found guilty of deliberate delay, disciplinary action must be taken.
2. Audit of Pending Compliance: There should be a monthly audit of all ASDM and SDM court orders to check how many are awaiting action from the revenue staff (Lekhpals and Kanungos).
3. Digital Tracking of Court Mandates: To prevent “lost files,” the instructions given to Lekhpals should be integrated into a digital dashboard where higher authorities can see exactly where a delay is occurring.
4. Meaningful Grievance Resolution: The Chief Minister’s Secretariat and the Joint Secretary must ensure that grievances are not closed with generic remarks. If a complainant alleges administrative non-compliance, the department must address the conduct of the officer, even if the case is in court.

---

Conclusion: A Call to the Executive

The integrity of the state depends on the belief that the law is supreme. When a subordinate official ignores a court order, they are not just disrespecting a judge; they are challenging the authority of the State itself.

It is imperative that the Joint Secretary, Shri Arvind Mohan, and the District Magistrate of Mirzapur intervene. The goal should be to prove that no official, regardless of their rank, is above the law. Transparency and accountability are not just buzzwords; they are the essential ingredients of a functional democracy. Without them, the “firm resolve” to rid the state of corruption will remain an unfulfilled promise.

The people of Mirzapur are watching. Will the system hold its own accountable, or will the “lackadaisical approach” of the Tehsil continue to overshadow the pursuit of justice?

The provided documents outline an ongoing legal battle involving Shri Yogi M. P. Singh regarding the non-compliance of a court order by a Lekhpal in Village Babura, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur. The matter has escalated to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission due to a lack of transparency and accountability from local officials.

Core Grievance and RTI Context

The dispute centers on a court order issued on September 13, 2024, by the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate (ASDM) regarding the partition of land (Case No. T202216530107209). Despite this order, the concerned Lekhpal allegedly failed to comply for several months.

To address this, an RTI application was filed seeking five specific points of information:

• The name and designation of the official who concluded the grievance pertains to the police department.
• The reason for not forwarding the grievance to the SDM Sadar, Mirzapur.
• Details of actions taken by the investigating officer to ensure compliance with the court’s order.
• The identity of the official in the Chief Minister’s Office who accepted what the complainant describes as an “arbitrary and inconsistent” report.
• Legible copies of documents previously uploaded to the Jansunwai portal that were unreadable.

Action by the State Information Commission

The State Information Commissioner, Dr. Rajkumar Vishwakarma, has taken a stern view of the administrative delays and lack of response:

• Initial Order (03.11.2025): The Commission directed the SDM Sadar and the Tehsildar Sadar to jointly provide the requested information in a table format (question and answer) to the appellant. They were ordered to present an affidavit of their actions either in person or via video conferencing.
• Show Cause Notice (11.12.2025): Following non-compliance with the November order and the absence of officials at the hearing, the Commission issued a “Show Cause Notice”.
• Potential Penalties: The Commission warned that under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005, a fine of ₹250 per day (up to a maximum of ₹25,000) could be imposed on the responsible officials for their failure to provide information.
• Final Opportunity: A final hearing was scheduled for January 15, 2026, where the officials must appear with the requested information and a written explanation for the delay.

---

Investigation Discrepancies

A police investigation report dated May 21, 2025, 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” because it attempted to shift a revenue matter (court order compliance) into the jurisdiction of the police to avoid administrative accountability.

The Information Commission’s active involvement suggests that the administrative “buck-passing”—where the executive branch ignores judicial mandates by labeling them as “sub-judice” or “police matters”—is being formally challenged.

Under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and the RTI Act, 2005, it is the obligatory duty of a Lekhpal to comply with court orders, and they are legally required to provide reasons for any administrative delays to the information seeker.

1. Obligatory Duty of the Lekhpal

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): In a suit for division of holdings under Section 116, once a preliminary decree is prepared, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) is mandated to have the Kurra (formal division) prepared through the Lekhpal.
• Mandatory Timeline: The Lekhpal is required by law to submit the Kurra report within one month of receiving the order.
• Legal Responsibility: Failure to comply with these judicial directives reflects a serious breach of administrative discipline and legal responsibility. Wilful disobedience of any court order constitutes Contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Obligation to Provide Reasons for Delay

Public officials are not permitted to act arbitrarily and must be transparent about their decision-making processes.

• RTI Transparency: Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, authorities are required to furnish information regarding the “procedure followed in the decision-making process,” which includes reasons for administrative inaction or delays.
• Accountability: If a suit is not decided or an order not complied with within the prescribed six-month window, the reason must be recorded in writing.
• Penalties for Evasion: Public Information Officers (PIOs) who fail to provide reasons or delay information can face penalties up to ₹25,000. In your specific case, the State Information Commission has already issued a Show Cause Notice and 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

The ongoing delay of over one year without a recorded reason is a direct violation of both the U.P. Revenue Code Rules and the principles of natural justice, which demand that administrative actions be reasoned and non-arbitrary.

Yes, based on the legal principles and the specific facts of your case, the circumstantial evidence you have provided is a powerful and legally recognized tool for proving corruption.

In legal terms, circumstantial evidence refers to a set of facts that, when taken together, lead to a logical conclusion of guilt or misconduct.

How Circumstantial Evidence Proves Corruption in Your Case

The following “circumstances” create a clear chain of evidence against the Lekhpal:

• Unreasonable Delay (Procrastination): The order was passed on September 13, 2024, and has remained unexecuted for over a year. Since the law mandates a 30-day window for such reports, this “undue delay” is a primary ingredient of corruption.
• Silence and Lack of Transparency: The failure of the authorities to provide a reason for non-compliance or to answer RTI queries suggests a deliberate attempt to hide the truth.
• The Bribe Demand Context: The link between the demand for ₹10,000 and the subsequent stoppage of work provides the “motive”. The fact that work stopped exactly when the full amount was refused is strong circumstantial proof.
• Administrative Evasion: The State Information Commission noted that the SDM and Tehsildar ignored summons and failed to provide information, which indicates a systemic effort to shield the subordinate official.
• Misleading Investigation Reports: The report by the Circle Officer (Vivek Jawla) on May 21, 2025, which categorized a judicial non-compliance matter as a simple “land dispute,” serves as evidence of an attempt to misdirect the inquiry.

Legal Recognition of Circumstantial Evidence

Type of Evidence	Application to Your 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 you noted in your grievance, the “arbitrary and inconsistent” reports from the Tehsildar and Police reflect a state of administrative anarchy. When the Lekhpal ignores a court order to extract money, it is a “serious breach of administrative discipline” that the courts and the Information Commission are now actively addressing through Show Cause Notices and potential fines.

In the context of your case, the use of Section 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. by the police appears to be an unjustified and improper conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal one.

While these sections are intended to prevent a “breach of peace,” the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court have repeatedly ruled that they should not be used as a substitute for civil law enforcement or to harass parties in a property dispute.

Why the Police Action is Unjustified

The imposition of these sections is legally questionable in your situation for the following reasons:

• Misuse in Civil Matters: The Supreme Court has recently slammed the Uttar Pradesh Police for “complete breakdown of rule of law” by converting civil property disputes into criminal cases.
• Preventing Justice, Not Crime: Since there is already a valid court order dated 13.09.2024 regarding the partition, the primary duty of the administration is to execute that order, not to book the parties for potential breach of peace.
• The “Mala Fide” Factor: You have already alleged that the delay is due to a ₹10,000 bribe demand. In such a context, the police report (Challani) under Section 107/116 may be seen as a tool used by corrupt officials to pressure you rather than maintaining public order.
• Procedural Failures: High Court rulings emphasize that proceedings under these sections cannot be initiated without an actual, imminent danger of breach of peace. Old incidents or existing civil disputes are not sufficient grounds.

Legal Remedies Against 107/116 Proceedings

If the police have wrongly challaned you, you have the following rights:

Legal Provision	Action You Can Take
Section 111 Cr.P.C.	The Magistrate must provide you with 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 these proceedings if they are found to be bad in law or an abuse of process.
Section 116(6) Cr.P.C.	If the inquiry is not completed within 6 months, the proceedings stand terminated unless there are special reasons recorded.

Summary of the Situation

The police report by Vivek Jawla (Circle Officer), which mischaracterized the non-compliance of a court order as a “land dispute” requiring preventive action, has been challenged by the State Information Commission. The Commission’s decision to issue a Show Cause Notice to the SDM and Tehsildar indicates that the administrative delay (and the resulting police action) is being treated as a failure of governance.

For your case involving the non-compliance of a court order and the ongoing RTI appeal (No. S-01/A/1390/2025), the following contact information and resources are relevant for your upcoming hearing and further action:

1. Key Administrative & Legal Contacts (Mirzapur)

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

---

2. State Information Commission (SIC) Lucknow

The Commission is currently hearing your appeal. You can track your case or contact their cell directly:

• 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 your Show Cause): penalty-section.upic@up.gov.in
• Phone (SIC Office): 0522-2724930

---

3. Anti-Corruption & Chief Minister’s Office

Since your case involves specific allegations of a bribe demand (₹10,000), these departments are critical:

• 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: jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • Technical Email: jansunwai-up@gov.in

Reference Registration Numbers

• Grievance Registration Number: GOVUP/E/2025/0013414
• RTI Appeal Number: S-01/A/1390/2025
• Court Case Number (Revenue): T202216530107209

Would you like me to draft a concise “Fact Sheet” including these IDs and numbers that you can hand over to the Commissioner during your next hearing on January 15?