Key takeaways from this blog post

Based on the detailed account of the grievance, here are the key takeaways regarding the dispute involving Registration No: GOVUP/E/2025/0064331:

• Allegations of Police Misconduct: The complainant, Kamlesh Singh, accuses the SHO of Jigna Police Station of “anarchy” and partiality. The primary claim is that the police allowed the opposing party to take possession and begin construction despite earlier assurances that the status quo would be maintained.
• Confirmed Stamp Duty Evasion: Official investigations by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration (Mirzapur) have confirmed “stamp theft.” Two cases (D202316530000370 and D2023165000370) have been filed to recover a total of ₹2,73,640 in unpaid duties and fees from the purchasers and sellers.
• Pending Judicial Adjudication: The land title is currently under litigation in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sadar. The complainant argues that until mutation proceedings are legally finalized, no party should be allowed to alter the site or take possession.
• The “Right to Reason”: A central demand of the grievance is administrative transparency. Mr. Singh insists that the police must provide the legal basis or court order that authorized them to permit construction on land that is currently the subject of both civil litigation and a government recovery case.
• Demands for Intervention: The complainant is seeking a direct order from the Chief Minister’s Secretariat to stop all work on the site (including the installation of stones and wire fencing) to prevent further escalation and to protect the integrity of the pending Revenue Court decision.
• High-Level Oversight: The matter has been escalated to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) at the UP Secretariat, indicating that the complaint is being treated as a serious matter of administrative accountability rather than a simple local dispute.

This blog post provides a structured analysis of the grievance filed by Shri Kamlesh Singh regarding land disputes, alleged administrative negligence, and the legal complexities surrounding stamp duty evasion in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.

---

Police Accountability and Land Law: The Case of Jigna Police Station

The intersection of property rights, police intervention, and administrative transparency often creates a complex web of legal challenges for citizens. A recent grievance filed by Shri Kamlesh Singh (Registration No: GOVUP/E/2025/0064331) highlights a significant breakdown in the expected neutrality of local law enforcement in District Mirzapur. The core of the issue lies in the alleged “anarchy” of the Station House Officer (SHO) at Jigna Police Station and the premature possession of land under litigation.

1. The Core Dispute: Allegations of Police Overreach

The complainant, Kamlesh Singh, has raised serious questions regarding the conduct of the SHO of Jigna Police Station. Central to this grievance is the question of legal authority. Under Indian law, the police are tasked with maintaining law and order, not adjudicating land titles or determining the validity of possession in civil disputes.

Mr. Singh alleges that the SHO allowed certain individuals to take possession of and begin construction on a “controversial land” despite previous assurances that no work would proceed. The grievance poses a fundamental question: By whose authority did the police allow the grab? Without an order from a competent civil or revenue court, police intervention to facilitate a change in possession is often viewed by the courts as an overstepping of jurisdictional boundaries.

2. The Legal Status of Disputed Land and Mutation

A critical point of contention in this case is the status of the land’s mutation (the transfer of title in local municipal records). Mr. Singh argues that:

• Litigation is currently pending in various courts, including the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sadar.
• The land in question is “ancestral property” allegedly sold by Raghuvar Dayal Singh to his relatives (son-in-law and daughter-in-law).
• Legal Precedent: Possession of land generally shouldn’t be forcibly altered until mutation proceedings are finalized and the court has passed a definitive decree.

The complainant is demanding a “Right to Reason”—an indispensable part of administrative law—asking the police to explain how they concluded that the mutation was complete and why they permitted construction to resume.

---

3. The Shadow of Stamp Duty Theft

Perhaps the most legally damaging aspect of this case involves the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Mirzapur. Investigations have already confirmed a significant “theft of stamp duty” involving the sellers and purchasers of the land.

Summary of Stamp Duty Evasion (Case Details)

Based on site inspections conducted on April 21, 2023, the following discrepancies were recorded:

Case Number	Deficiency Type	Amount (INR)	Status
D202316530000370	Stamp Duty & Reg. Fee	₹2,29,640	Recovery Pending
D2023165000370	Stamp Duty & Settlement	₹44,000	Recovery Pending
Total Recovery		₹2,73,640

The existence of these cases suggests that the registration deed itself is tainted by financial irregularities. Mr. Singh argues that while the government is pursuing these offenders for revenue loss, the same “wrongdoers” should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of a disputed and improperly registered deed.

4. Specific Incidents of Conflict

The grievance details a specific timeline of events that fueled the current tension:

• The Hand Pump Incident: Construction of a bore-well by Jay Dhir Singh was previously stopped due to police intervention. However, the complainant alleges that the police have since turned a blind eye.
• Encroachment Tactics: Dilip Singh is allegedly attempting to surround the land with stones and wire.
• Harassment: The complainant has requested the Superintendent of Police (SP) Mirzapur to take action against Dilip Singh for “hurling abuses” and creating a hostile environment.

5. The Moral and Legal Duty of the Police

In matters of land dispute, the role of the police is often governed by Sections 145 and 146 of the CrPC (now relevant sections under the BNSS), which allow the police to prevent a breach of peace but generally require them to maintain the status quo until a Revenue Court decides the matter.

Mr. Singh’s grievance underscores a demand for neutrality. If the Revenue Court has not yet decided on the ownership or the validity of the sale—especially given the pending stamp duty cases—the police’s alleged support of the purchasers’ construction efforts represents a bypass of the judicial process.

6. Current Status and Administrative Movement

The grievance was officially received by the Chief Minister’s Secretariat on June 13, 2025, and has been forwarded to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary).

The movement of this file to the high-level Secretariat suggests that the allegations of “anarchy” at the local station level are being taken seriously. For the complainant, the goal is clear: a directive must be issued to the Jigna Police to stop all construction and wait for the “Honourable Revenue Court” to deliver its verdict.

---

Conclusion: The Path Forward

This case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by citizens when local enforcement agencies intersect with complex civil litigations. For a “sound administrative system” to function, transparency is non-negotiable.

The Mirzapur administration and the UP Police now face the task of answering:

1. Why was construction allowed on land with pending litigation?
2. What steps are being taken to recover the ₹2.74 Lakhs in evaded stamp duty?
3. Will the SHO Jigna be held accountable for the alleged lack of transparency?

The resolution of this grievance will be a litmus test for the “zero-tolerance” policy against administrative negligence in Uttar Pradesh.

To ensure you have the correct channels for follow-up and legal escalation, here are the official contact details for the authorities concerned with your grievance.

---

1. State Level: Chief Minister’s Secretariat

This is the highest administrative office in Uttar Pradesh where your grievance has been forwarded.

Public Authority	Official Name	Contact Number	Email Address
Joint Secretary (CM Office)	Shri Arvind Mohan	0522-2226350	arvind.12574@gov.in
Chief Secretary (UP)	Shri Shashi Prakash Goyal	0522-2238212	cs-up@nic.in
CM Helpline (24/7)	N/A	1076	jansunwai-up@gov.in

Address: Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lok Bhawan, Lucknow – 226001.

---

2. District Level: Mirzapur Police & Administration

Since the grievance concerns the “anarchy” of a specific police station, these are the senior officers who oversee the SHO of Jigna.

Authority / Office	Designation	Mobile (CUG)	Email Address
SP Mirzapur	DIG/SSP	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
ASP City	Addl. SP	9454401104	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
CO Lalganj	Circle Officer	9454401592	co-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
District Magistrate	DM Mirzapur	9454417567	dmmir@nic.in

Police Station Jigna:

• Landline: 05442-236011
• SHO Jigna (CUG): 9454404006

---

3. Department of Registration (Stamp Duty Cases)

For matters related to the pending stamp duty theft cases (D202316530000370 and D2023165000370):

• Assistant Inspector General (AIG) Registration, Mirzapur: * Phone: 05442-252108 (District Office)
• IG Registration Headquarters (Prayagraj): * Phone: 0532-2623667
  • Web Link: igrsup.gov.in

---

4. Web Links for Tracking & Evidence

• Official Grievance Portal (IGRS): jansunwai.up.nic.in
• Revenue Court Case Status:vaad.up.nic.in
  • Use this to monitor the specific litigation mentioned in your description.
• Stamp Evasion Search: igrsup.gov.in/igrsup/stampTheftSearch

---

Next Step: Since the status is currently “Grievance Received,” would you like me to draft a formal email addressed to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) that specifically highlights the SHO’s failure to maintain the status quo despite the pending stamp duty cases?