The blog post highlights a critical disconnect between legal procedures and ground-level enforcement in land disputes, where Police Action can play a significant role. Here are the key takeaways:

1. The Conflict of “Might vs. Right” in matter of Police Action

The central issue is the erosion of the Rule of Law. When a court case is pending (sub judice), the legal expectation is that the status quo will be maintained. However, the post illustrates that without active police intervention, “muscle power” (physical force) often creates permanent changes on the ground before a judge can rule.

2. Misinterpretation of “Sub Judice”

There is a significant systemic flaw where police often use a pending court case as an excuse for inaction.

• The Reality: Police are not meant to decide ownership, but they are legally empowered to prevent illegal dispossession and breach of peace.
• The Result: By staying “neutral” while one party fences the land, the police are effectively allowing the illegal act to be completed.

3. Financial Crime as a Lever supported by null Police Action

The dispute isn’t just a private matter; it involves Stamp Duty Theft.

• The registry involves a massive loss to the state exchequer (over Rs. 2.73 Lakhs).
• The post suggests that if the state is already pursuing these individuals for revenue fraud, the police should be even more vigilant in preventing them from taking illegal possession of the land associated with that fraud.

4. RTI as a Tool for Accountability

The RTI filed by Kamlesh Singh serves as a formal mechanism to force the police to go on the record. It specifically challenges:

• Why previous police assurances were not kept.
• Why no FIR has been registered despite clear allegations of land grabbing.
• The status of recovery for the stolen stamp duty.

---

5. The “Fact on the Ground” Strategy

The post exposes a common tactic in rural land grabbing:

1. Perform an undervalued registry.
2. Quickly use force to enclose the land.
3. Drag out court proceedings for years so that the “new reality” is too difficult for the victim to overturn.

Sub Judice vs. Status Quo: When Muscle Power Outpaces the Law and Police Action favour grabbers

In the village of Kothra Kantit, Mirzapur, a battle is being waged that reflects a systemic failure in the rural justice delivery system. Police Action has become a central factor in these tensions. On one side is a legal process involving alleged stamp duty theft and pending adjudication. On the other is the cold reality of wire fencing and physical intimidation.

The core question raised by RTI applicant Kamlesh Singh is profound: What is the meaning of a court trial if rights are decided by force before the court can even speak?

1. The “Sub Judice” Shield: A Police Misconception

A recurring theme in land disputes is the police’s refusal to intervene, citing that the matter is “sub judice.” While it is true that police cannot decide the ownership of land under litigation, they have a statutory duty to maintain law and order. Moreover, when it comes to police action, they must prevent the illegal dispossession of property.

• The Misstep: By allowing one party to “grab” land through “muscle power,” the police are not being neutral. Instead, they are inadvertently validating a change in the status quo.
• The Legal Reality: If a court has not yet issued a specific injunction (Stay Order), the police are often hesitant. However, under Section 145 of the CrPC (now relevant sections of the BNSS), the Executive Magistrate and Police have the power to prevent a breach of peace regarding land disputes. The emphasis on appropriate police action becomes especially significant in these circumstances.

2. The Stamp Duty Theft: Financial Crimes vs. Physical Possession

The RTI application references two specific stamp cases (D202316530000370 and D2023165000370) regarding a significant loss to the public exchequer. Notably, police action shapes the outcome in cases where possession and legality intersect.

The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Mirzapur, previously identified a reduction in stamp duty and registration fees totaling over Rs. 2,73,000. This isn’t just a private land dispute; it is a revenue crime against the State.

The Irony: The state is pursuing the offenders for “stealing” from the public treasury through undervalued registries, yet the local Jigna police are allegedly allowing those same offenders to consolidate their hold on the land.

3. The RTI as a Tool for Accountability

Kamlesh Singh’s RTI request to the ASP (Operation) Mirzapur, Om Prakash Singh, targets three critical points of failure.

• Broken Assurances: The Station House Officer (SHO) of Jigna allegedly assured the applicant that no wire fencing would occur. The RTI demands an explanation for why this “protective umbrella” vanished, especially in light of police action not taken to prevent encroachment.
• The Recovery Gap: If the offenders owe the state lakhs in unpaid stamp duty, why is the machinery allowing them to enjoy the fruits of that disputed registry?
• The Refusal to Register an FIR: In many cases, land grabbing is treated as a “civil matter” to avoid filing an FIR. The RTI seeks the legal justification for why a First Information Report has not been lodged despite the alleged illegal possession.

---

4. The Anatomy of Land Grabbing through “Muscle Power” escape of Police Action

Land grabbing in rural areas often follows a predictable, illegal pattern, where effective police action is notably absent:

1. Undervaluation: Registering land at a lower price to save on stamp duty (as seen in the Mirzapur case).
2. Physical Enclosure: Quickly erecting wire fences or boundary walls to establish “possession.”
3. Legal Procrastination: Using the slow pace of the courts to ensure that by the time a judgment arrives (years later), the “fact on the ground” is too difficult to reverse.

5. Why “Sub Judice” Does Not Mean “Stop Enforcement”

It is a dangerous precedent to suggest that once a case enters a courtroom, the police become spectators. If a party uses force to supersede an awaited court order, they are essentially committing Contempt of Court by proxy. This renders the eventual judgment moot. Therefore, police action must persist regardless of pending litigation to protect the legal process.

The Role of the Superintendent of Police

The RTI filed (SPMZR/R/2025/60189) places the ball in the court of the Mirzapur Police administration. Clearly, the matter of appropriate action by police remains at the heart of public scrutiny.

• Whether the Jigna police report accurately reflects the ground reality.
• Why “status quo” was not enforced if the police had previously provided assurances.

---

Conclusion in matter focussed on Police Action lacunae: Seeking Justice Beyond the Paperwork

Kamlesh Singh’s struggle is not just about a plot of land in Kothra Kantit; it is about the integrity of the Rule of Law. If “muscle power” is allowed to win while the court deliberates, the judicial system becomes a luxury the common man cannot afford to trust, and the absence of decisive police action undermines public faith.

The response from PIO Om Prakash Singh will be a litmus test for whether the Mirzapur police serve the law or the loudest voice in the village. After all, effective action by police is central to upholding justice in such cases.

To ensure you have the correct channels for pursuing this matter, here are the essential contact details and web links for the concerned public authorities in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.

---

1. Key Police Authorities (Mirzapur)

If the local Jigna Police are not taking action, you should escalate the matter to these senior officers who oversee the district.

Designation	Name of Officer	Mobile/CUG	Email ID
Superintendent of Police (SP)	Shri Somen Barma (IPS)	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
Addl. SP (Operation) / PIO	Manish Kumar Mishra	9454401105	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
DIG (Vindhyachal Range)	Shri Rakesh Prakash Singh	9454400215	digrmir@nic.in
CO (Operation) / Dy.SP	Ms. Shikha Bharti	9454401594	co-operation.mi@up.gov.in

Note: The RTI mentioned Om Prakash Singh as the ASP (Operation); however, updated records indicate Manish Kumar Mishra may currently hold this charge. It is best to address correspondence to the designation (ASP Operation, Mirzapur) to ensure it reaches the current officer.

---

2. Revenue & Registration Authorities

Regarding the Stamp Duty Theft (Cases D202316530000370 and D2023165000370), these authorities are responsible for the recovery of the missing revenue.

• Assistant Inspector General (AIG) Registration, Mirzapur: * Office: Collectorate Compound, Mirzapur.
  • Focus: Recovery of the Rs. 2,73,640/- identified in your application.
• IG Registration / Commissioner of Stamps (Lucknow/Prayagraj):
  • Phone: 0532-2623667 (Prayagraj HQ) / 0522-2308697 (Lucknow)
  • Website: igrsup.gov.in

---

3. Important Web Links & Portals

Use these links to file formal complaints online, which generates a tracking ID that the police cannot ignore.

• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal:jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • Use the “Anti-Bhu Mafia” (Anti-Land Mafia) section specifically for land-grabbing issues.
• UP RTI Online:rtionline.up.gov.in
  • To file a first appeal if you do not receive a satisfactory response within 30 days.
• UP Police Official Website: uppolice.gov.in
• Anti-Corruption Portal: Accessible via the Jansunwai home page if you suspect collusion between the police and the opposition.

---

4. Reference IDs for Your Records in matter Police Action on land grabbing

Keep these numbers ready for all future correspondence:

• Current RTI Reg No: SPMZR/R/2025/60189
• Previous RTI Reg No: SPMZR/R/2024/60061
• Stamp Case Nos: D202316530000370 and D2023165000370