Uttar Pradesh land grievance cases often involve conflicts between landowners, government acquisition, illegal encroachments, and discrepancies in land records. However, many residents in Uttar Pradesh face significant challenges in resolving these land grievances. Moreover, bureaucratic hurdles and lengthy legal processes in Uttar Pradesh make it difficult to resolve land grievances. In response, the state government has implemented measures to streamline land records and facilitate easier access to dispute resolution. Therefore, understanding the nuances of land grievances in Uttar Pradesh is crucial. After all, fair treatment and justice for landowners and farmers depend on the effective resolution of land grievances in Uttar Pradesh. Ultimately, solving these issues is vital to the state’s sustainable development.

Here are the key takeaways:

A significant Uttar Pradesh land grievance centres on Araji Number 164, previously listed as 175, 183, and 191. The complainant alleges that revenue officials manipulated records to split government land and then illegally sold it to local “muscle men.” As a result, this specific Uttar Pradesh land grievance highlights the depth of the issue in the state. Notably, a major legal deadlock has emerged. (Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance)

Instead of taking proactive measures, officials instruct citizens to file private lawsuits to correct the records. The citizen contends that, since the land belongs to the Government, the District Magistrate and Tehsildar—as legal custodians—should initiate legal action. Furthermore, the citizen maintains that it is not the responsibility of a private individual to do so. (Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance)

The complainant accuses local officials, especially the Lekhpal, of submitting repetitive reports. These are called “corruption-oriented” because they copy previous statements. The complainant says these reports shield predecessors rather than investigate actual fraud.

• Statutory Obligations: The grievance refers to Sections 32 and 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. These sections, according to the complainant, obligate the Collector and Tehsildar to maintain accurate land records and to exercise their authority to correct fraudulent entries without waiting for private lawsuits.
• The complainant made several filings on the Jansunwai/IGRS portal. Nevertheless, these complaints are closed with remarks. The complainant claims the remarks are “wrong” and “misleading.” In addition, there has been no physical site investigation. Consequently, the corruption claim remains unresolved. The complainant is seeking a transparent inquiry by an independent agency. They want to bypass the local Tehsil staff The complainant alleges these staff are complicit in “anarchy” and “land grabbing.”

Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance: Allegations of Land Scams and Systemic Apathy – The Case of Araji No. 164 in Mirzapur

The integrity of land records forms the backbone of rural governance in India. Yet when officials entrusted with these records—the very stewards of public property—face accusations of complicity in their illegal sale, public trust begins to erode. Ashok Kumar Maurya files grievances regarding government land in Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur, revealing a troubling narrative of alleged corruption, “parrot reports,” and contested legal standing (Locus Standi).

---

The Core Dispute: The Lifecycle of Araji Number 164 (Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance)

This grievance centres on a tract of non-agricultural government land. The complainant claims that officials made suspicious administrative changes to the land before selling it to private individuals referred to as “muscle men.”

As alleged, the land records follow a confusing trail: officials originally recorded the land as Araji Number 175.

1. The number changed sequentially from Araji Number 183 to Araji Number 191.
2. Finally, they listed it as Araji Number 164. They then split it into 164 K (क) and 164 Kh (ख).

The complainant alleges that through manipulating public records, staff members at Tehsil Sadar facilitated the sale of Araji Number 164K to specific villagers, including Indiaj and Mewa from Village Bihasara Khurd. The central accusation is clear: Public land has been privatised through administrative sleight of hand.

---

The “Locus Standi” Paradox (Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance)

One of the most significant hurdles in this battle is the legal concept of Locus Standi—the right or capacity to bring an action to court.

The local revenue officials, including the Lekhpal and Tehsildar, have repeatedly advised the complainant to file a private suit or litigation under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, to correct the records. However, this creates a logical and legal paradox:

• The land in question is government property. Thus, the primary “aggrieved party” is the State of Uttar Pradesh.
• The Citizen’s Argument: Ashok Kumar Maurya argues that, as a law-abiding citizen, he is reporting a crime against the state. He contends that the District Magistrate (DM), the Chief Revenue Officer (CRO), and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) are the actual custodians.
• The Shift of Responsibility: When officials instruct a private citizen to file a case, they are asking a third party to fulfil the custodians’ duty. The complainant then questions whether a citizen has the locus standi to correct government records, or whether it is the mandatory duty of the DM and SDM to protect land in their jurisdiction. numbers: GOVUP/E/2025/0051450, 0034807, and 0021969) is dissatisfaction with the actions of the mid-level officials. The complainant labels these as “parrot reports.”

Fresh, Independent Investigation

In the context of India and bureaucracy, a “parrot report” refers to a standardised, repetitive response in which a lower-level official (like a deputy commissioner) repeats the version of events provided by their predecessors or superiors without conducting a fresh, independent investigation.

Key issues highlighted in these Uttar Pradesh land grievances include allegations that Lekhpal Pranjal Upadhyay and others shielded corruption by previous staff. For instance, the complainant claims that “no one came to investigate.” Yet, officials mark grievances as “closed.” Moreover, complaints are closed without a confirmation call. Thus, the core Uttar Pradesh land grievance remains unresolved.Legal Framework: Sections 32 and 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006

The complainant specifically cites Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, to remind officials of their statutory obligations.

Section 32 (1) states that, subject to the control of the Collector, the SDM, Tehsildar, or Revenue Inspector shall record all changes in the record of rights (Khatauni) and correct any errors proved to have been made. The complainant argues errors in the records are proven by the history of Araji numbers. Section 38 gives revenue authorities the power to make a “Suo Moto” correction. By refusing to act, authorities show “tyranny and arbitrariness.”

---

The Call for Accountability

The situation in Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur, as described, indicates a breakdown in land administration. Not only does selling public land through manipulated records constitute a legal error, but it also causes a financial loss for the state and represents a setback for village welfare. The complainant wants an independent agency to investigate the bifurcation and sale of Araji No. 164. Additionally, the complainant requests a direct order to the District Magistrate and Tehsildar. Authorities should submit a plaint before the competent court to correct the records, rather than shifting this burden onto the citizen. As a result, officials must end the practice of closing grievances with misleading remarks.

Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance: A Test for the Jansunwai System

The Jansunwai (IGRS) portal was designed to provide a direct line to the citizens and the Chief Minister, bypassing local corruption. However, if the portal forwards complaints back to the very officers being accused, the system fails.

The case of Ashok Kumar Maurya vs Tehsil Sadar is a litmus test for the Uttar Pradesh government. The time has come for the Joint Secretary at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Shri Arvind Mohan, to intervene decisively and ensure that the “custodians” of the land fulfil their duty, rather than let “parrot reports” determine the outcome. To help escalate or track these grievances, refer to the contact details, application references, and web resources for public authorities in Mirzapur and the Chief Minister’s Secretariat in Lucknow, provided below.

---

1 Reference Numbers (Application). (Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance)

The following registration numbers are critical for future correspondence:pondence:

• Primary Grievance: GOVUP/E/2025/0051450 (Date: 16/05/2025)
• Previous Grievances: GOVUP/E/2025/0034807 (07/04/2025) and GOVUP/E2. Concerned Public Authorities (Contact Details)

A. Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance. These officials oversee the Jansunwai (IGRS) portal. They handle escalated public complaints. public complaints.

Designation	Name	Contact Number	Email / Room No.
Joint Secretary	Shri Arvind Mohan	0522-2226350 / 2226354	arvind.12574@gov.in / Room 321
Section Officer (Grievance 1)	Shri Santosh K. Tiwari	0522-2226457	Room 323, Lok Bhawan
CM Computer Cell	Technical Support	0522-2226357	jansunwai-up@gov.in

B. District Administration (Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance). They are responsible for correcting records under the U.P. Revenue Code.

Authority	Name / Designation	Phone Number	Official Email
District Magistrate	Shri Pawan Kumar Gangwar	9454417567	dmmir@nic.in
Divisional Commissioner	Shri Rajesh Prakash	05442-245100	commmir@nic.in
ADM (Finance & Revenue)	Shri Ajai Kumar Singh	9454417638	admfr.mi-up@gov.in
SDM Sadar (Mirzapur)	Concerned SDM Office	9454416141 (General)	mvsadamzp@gmail.com

---

3. Web Links & Digital Portals (Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance)

• Grievance Status Tracking: Jansunwai-Samadhan Portal
  • Use this to check status or send a “Reminder” (SRevenue Records (Khatauni/Khasra): Bhulekh Uttar). The current entries for Araji Number 164 are using this resource Number 164 Revenue Court Cases: UP Revenue Court Computerised System. If a case is filed under Section 38, track it here. Under Section 38, track it here ked here.
• District Website: Mirzapur Official Portal

---

Uttar Pradesh Land Grievance. When communicating with these offices, cite these sections. This will help you demand a Suo Moto action by the Collector: collector:

• Section 32: Mandatory duty of the Tehsildar/SDM to correct errors in the Record of Rights.
• Section 38: Power of the Collector to correct errors and omissions in the map and records.

Note: Since the land belongs to the Government, you can demand that the District Magistrate act as the petitioner to protect state property, rather than asking you (a citizen) to file private litigation. This is a recurring aspect in Uttar Pradesh land grievance cases, where citizens are often asked to take on the burden of legal action for issues that require official intervention.

Would you like me to draft a formal “Letter of Reminder” (Smarak) addressed to the District Magistrate Mirzapur, citing these specific contact details and registration numbers?