Lekhpal had to make sure compliance with the order of ASDM Sadar, but no compliance was achieved still. Yogi M P Singh made a complaint to the government against Lekhpal and thereafter RTI. Here, the district administration played a cunning role by transferring it to the police. Thus, it deviated the attention from the real issue. It taught a lesson to the aggrieved applicant for making a complaint. Obviously, the police misused section 107/116 of Cr. P.C. in BNSS section 126/135.
Key Takeaways
- Yogi M P Singh filed a complaint against Lekhpal for non-compliance with the Order of ASDM Sadar. This led to administrative misdirection.
- The court issued a land partition order in September 2024. The Lekhpal failed to enforce this order. As a result, there are allegations of corruption.
- Following an RTI application, the PIO provided contradictory and evasive responses, provoking Singh to escalate the matter through appeals.
- Singh challenges the PIO’s misuse of the Right to Information Act, demanding accountability and transparency from officials involved.
- The case now rests with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Singh is seeking full compliance. He also wants penalties for dereliction of duty.
Order of ASDM Sadar: Citizen Alleges ‘Jungle Raj’ After Lekhpal Ignores Court Order
Mirzapur, U.P. – A citizen wants accountability from the State Information Commission. His case concerns the Order of ASDM Sadar. He alleges that officials mishandled his grievance about the non-compliance of a quasi-judicial court order. Because of this mishandling, he received responses to his RTI application that he describes as “misleading and contradictory.” Yogi M. P. Singh initiated the case. He focused attention on systemic issues of administrative delay. He also highlighted the alleged misdirection of public complaints.
The Root of the Conflict: An Unenforced Court Order (Order of ASDM Sadar)
The court of the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate (ASDM), Sadar, Mirzapur, issued a land partition order. This occurred on September 13, 2024, and started the issue.
The order pertained to land parcels in Mauza Babura. It decreed a 1/3 share for each of the three parties involved. The final directive was:
“अतः उपरोक्त विवेचना के अनुसार वाद पत्र के आधार पर मौजा बबुरा, तप्पा 96 परगना कंतित तहसील सदर जनपद मीरजापुर की आ0नं0 1012 रकबा 0.2940 हे० व आ०नं0 1271 रकबा 0.2570 हे0 व आ0नं0 1404 रकबा 0.1250 हे० में वादीगण का संयुक्त रूप से 1/3 अंश एवं प्रतिवादी सं० 1 का 1/3 अंश व प्रतिवादी सं० 2 का 1/3 अंश निर्धारित किया जाता है। तद्नुसार प्रारम्भिक डिकी बनायी जाय। लेखपाल फाट हेतु तलब हो । पत्रावली दिनांक 07. 10.2024 को पेश हो।”
(Translation/Summary): Each party receives an equal share in the land parcels 1012, 1271, and 1404 in Babura village. The shares are determined to be 1/3 each. The plaintiffs and the two defendants will each get one-third share. A preliminary decree is to be made accordingly. The Lekhpal is summoned for partition. The file is to be presented on 07/10/2024.
Despite this clear order, the concerned Lekhpal failed to ensure compliance. After more than seven months of inaction, Mr. Singh filed a grievance (PMOPG/E/2025/0058583) alleging that the delay was promoting corruption and anarchy in the Tehsil Sadar office.
A Grievance Misdirected, A System Questioned (Order of ASDM Sadar)
The grievance explicitly concerned the inaction of a Lekhpal, a revenue official under the SDM. Someone inexplicably forwarded the grievance to the Police Department.
On May 26, 2025, the authorities closed the grievance and then filed a police report. The report, in fact, showed that relatives were engaged in a land dispute, as per the Order of ASDM Sadar. Notably, a local Lekhpal authored the report.
Mr. Singh expressed profound dissatisfaction, noting:
The applicant had not mentioned in the grievance that, the matter concerns the working of the police. Even then, concerned forwarded it to police arbitrarily. Moreover, how can justice, thus, be available to the common people? Furthermore, what happens if, on the other hand, the grievances are forwarded to the other public who are not concerned? Undoubtedly, this situation is, in fact, reflecting the Jungle Raj in the working of the police.”
This misdirection prompted Mr. Singh to file an RTI application (SPMZR/R/2025/60124) on May 26, 2025, to seek reasons and fix accountability.
The RTI Inquiry and the PIO’s Controversial Reply (Order of ASDM Sadar)
The RTI application, therefore, sought specific, point-wise information:
- Firstly, reveal the name and designation of the official who concluded this revenue matter concerning the police.
- Secondly, The reason for not forwarding the matter to the SDM Sadar.
- Thirdly, Action taken by the investigating officer to ensure compliance with the court order.
- Furthermore, Steps taken by Circle Officer City, Vivek Jawla, to curb the “anarchy” of non-compliance.
- Lastly, Educational qualifications and posting details of Circle Officer Vivek Jawla.
The reply from the PIO, dated June 29, 2025, provided the following answers: (Order of ASDM Sadar)
- Point 1: The investigating officer ascertains which department the case relates to after review.
- Point 2: Sending a letter to the concerned person is not mandatory. This applies if the matter is related to revenue.
- Point 3: The concerned officer complies with the court order after receiving the instructions.
- Point 4: In the related case, the Lekhpal has not complied with the order of quasi judicial court of ASDM. The court of the ASDM has not issued any instructions to us. The authorities have filed a challan under preventive sections.
- Point 5: Personal information not payable under Section 8(1)(j).
Escalation to Appeal: Highlighting Contradictions and Evasions
Finding the PIO’s reply evasive and contradictory, Mr. Singh filed a First Appeal (SPMZR/A/2025/60031) on July 20, 2025, and later a Second Appeal (A-20250901935). The core grounds of the appeal are:
- Evasive Replies: Answers to points 1 & 2 did not find the specific decision-maker. They also neglected to give a valid reason for not transferring the RTI. This violated the ‘Right to Reason.
- Glaring Contradiction: The reply to Point 3 suggests that a process of compliance is in place. In contrast, the reply to Point 4 explicitly states “PIO says no order has been, complied with.” This creates a direct contradiction.
- Misuse of Section 8(1)(j): Denying the posting details and qualifications of a public officer misapplies the Act. This information is crucial for transparency. PIO misguided information seeker because similar details for judicial officers are public.
The case now rests with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. The appellant seeks full information, as well as the Order of ASDM Sadar. Additionally, they seek the imposition of penalties on the officials for obstructing information and dereliction of duty.
Case and Contact Details
- Appellant: Yogi M. P. Singh
- Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com
- Mobile: 7379105911
- Grievance Numbers: PMOPG/E/2025/0058583, GOVUP/E/2025/0013414
- RTI Application No: SPMZR/R/2025/60124
- First Appeal No: SPMZR/A/2025/60031
- Second Appeal No: A-20250901935
- Public Information Officer (PIO): Shri Om Prakash Singh, ASP Operation, Mirzapur
- First Appellate Authority (FAA): Shri Somen Verma, Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur
According to decision of A.S.D.M. Sadar no objection has been made against partition
Om Prakash Dubey requesting police to register F.I.R. against A.S.D.M. Sadar under advice of government as matter concerns corruption
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.