⚖️ Justice in Mirzapur: Allegations of Land Fraud and Official Oversight in Mirzapur RTI Case

Introduction: The Battle for Transparency

This blog post details a significant case currently before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). The case raises important questions about justice in Mirzapur. It illustrates the myriad challenges citizens face when using the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Act aims to expose alleged corruption and human rights violations within various government departments. Furthermore, it highlights the RTI Act’s essential role in empowering individuals. They can hold authorities accountable and demand justice for their grievances. This makes it imperative for civil society to advocate for its robust implementation and safeguarding.

---

Case Overview and Identification Details

The appellant, Sadhana Tiwari, is leveraging the RTI Act. She is seeking action against her relatives and the public servants who allegedly colluded. They illegally seized ancestral property belonging to a minor. (Justice in Mirzapur)

Detail	Information
Appellant Name	Sadhana Tiwari
Registration Number	A-20250300419
File Number	S09/A/0719/2025
Diary Number	D-211120250028
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Shri OMPRAKASH SINGH, SP Office, Mirzapur
Hearing Authority	Hon’ble Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner, Hearing Room S-9
Next Hearing Date	28th November 2025

---

The Core Conflict: A Bogus Report and Omissions

The appellant’s core issue is the PIO’s unsatisfactory response. It involves a report dated 28th February 2025 by the Circle Officer (CO) of Lalganj. The report failed to address several critical aspects of the request. (Justice in Mirzapur)
Despite the appellant’s detailed inquiry, the report merely skimmed the surface of the concerns raised. It did not offer adequate clarification or supportive data.
This lack of depth and clarity has frustrated the appellant. It also raises questions about the transparency and effectiveness of the responses provided by public officials.
Consequently, the appellant seeks further clarification on this matter. They want a resolution that upholds their right to information.

1. Arbitrary and Inconsistent Reporting

The appellant argues that the CO Lalganj report is “arbitrary, inconsistent, and bogus.”

• Contradictory Evidence: The report is alleged to contradict documents already submitted to the Commission. These documents include a UPHRC Order. They also include vital Revenue Records, such as Khatauni data. The relevant pages are 2, 3, and 4 of the original appeal. (Justice in Mirzapur)
• Procedural Lapse: The CO failed to review the representations previously submitted by the appellant. This oversight reflects a serious lack of diligence and transparency in the official investigation.

2. Manipulation of Revenue Records and Inheritance

The RTI request sought detailed information. It was related to the police’s failure to act on a land fraud case. This case had raised significant public concern.
The submitted information confirms the manipulation. Further investigations revealed that critical evidence was overlooked. Numerous complaints went unaddressed. This led to an understandable outcry from the community.
This lack of action not only undermined public trust in law enforcement. It also allowed fraudulent activities to proliferate unimpeded. Ultimately, countless individuals were harmed by these deceitful actions.
The implications of this negligence are far-reaching and highlight the urgent need for reform within the police department.

• Omission of Class One Heir: The records deliberately omitted the name of the appellant (Sadhana Tiwari). She is a rightful Class One heir. They also omitted her deceased father, whose contributions and rights to the estate were significant. They were excluded from the list of successors to Shambhu Saran Mishra. This leads to potential legal implications and grievances over rightful succession.
• Illegal Sale: The documents point to a conspiracy where colluding individuals illegally sold the property, exploiting a vulnerable position.

---

Legal Grounds for Intervention: IPC Sections and Human Rights (Justice in Mirzapur)

The appellant contends that the failure to furnish correct information regarding police action constitutes a human rights violation, linking the case to serious criminal charges:

• Grave Criminal Elements: The appellant has requested action under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the offenders. The request also includes colluding public staff (Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, Tehsildar). These sections include 466, 467, 468, 420, 195, and 471, which relate to forgery, cheating, and using forged documents.
• Violation of a Minor’s Rights: The case involves the unlawful deprivation of ancestral property from a minor girl. This is a gross violation of fundamental and human rights.

---

Strategy for the Upcoming Hearing: The Paper Book (Justice in Mirzapur)

In preparation for the November 28th hearing, the appellant has taken a crucial step to ensure the case proceeds on its merits:

• Inclusion of the Paper Book: The appellant formally objected that the Commission’s previous order (dated 26.09.2025) overlooked her initial written objection sent via KOF/email on 21st September 2025.
• Prayer: The appellant has several requests. First, they ask for the Commission to Acknowledge and Include this prior objection in the official Paper Book. Secondly, they want the Direct the Superintendent of Police to register an F.I.R. and order a fresh, transparent inquiry.

This move ensures that all evidence and arguments are part of the official record. It effectively reinforces the necessity for transparency and accountability within the proceedings.
This approach compels the Commission to address the substantive allegations of fraud and corruption. They must do this comprehensively. The Commission should not restrict its focus solely to the procedural aspects of the RTI application. (Justice in Mirzapur)
This heightened scrutiny facilitates a thorough examination of the claims made. It upholds the integrity of the investigation process. It ultimately bolsters public trust in the mechanisms designed to safeguard against misconduct and malfeasance.
Furthermore, it establishes a stronger framework to evaluate the legitimacy of the allegations. It ensures that all relevant information is considered. The information is analysed in a fair and equitable manner.

2023 Corruption Perceptions Index reveals urgent need for tangible change in Asia Pacific