Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption? The Case of Keshav Pratap Singh’s PM-KISAN Delay

The Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) was envisioned as a seamless direct benefit transfer scheme. It aims to provide financial security to India’s farmers. However, the gap between policy intent and local implementation is vast for many, raising the question of whether the root problem is Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption. This gap is filled with “administrative lethargy” and technical hurdles. The case of Keshav Pratap Singh, a farmer from Village Nibi Gaharwar in Mirzapur, highlights the issues faced by farmers. Inheritance cases and verification delays can deprive legitimate beneficiaries of their rights.

---

1. The Core Conflict: A Deadlock Between Center and State

The fundamental issue in this case is a jurisdictional “ping-pong.” The central grievance filed by Yogi M.P. Singh (Reference: DOAAC/E/2025/0045542) was closed with a recurring remark. The responsibility for the identification and verification of eligible farmers rests entirely with the State Government.

The Central Government manages the portal and disbursements. Local Tehsil and the District Nodal Officer handle the “on-the-ground” validation of land records (Khatauni). This creates a loop. The Central Department closes the file once the data is “sent to the state.” Meanwhile, the state authorities often leave the application in a “Pending” or “Under Consideration” status for months. (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

2. The Persistence of “Under Consideration” Status

For Keshav Pratap Singh, three distinct registration numbers—20250119514266, 20250119512524, and 20250119192467—have remained stuck. The online portal shows the status as “Pending for approval at Sub-District/Block Level.” However, internal reports from the Deputy Director of Agriculture (DDA), Mirzapur, suggest a different story1.

The DDA report claims that Tehsil rejected the application. The rejection occurred because the applicant failed to upload a certified Khatauni². This discrepancy between the public-facing “Pending” status and the internal “Rejected” reasoning causes significant frustration for farmers. They are often left in the dark about what specific documents are missing.

3. The Inheritance Hurdle and Family Precedent

A critical point of contention in this appeal is the issue of inheritance. Keshav Pratap Singh is the son of the late Rajendra Pratap Singh. This is a matter of record. Other family members, including Mahesh Pratap Singh and Aruna Pratap Singh, are already verified beneficiaries of the PM-KISAN scheme.

The land title has transitioned to the heirs of a previously verified beneficiary. Therefore, logic dictates expedited verification for the remaining heirs. Instead, the local administration at Block Chhanbey has allowed the case to stagnate. The appellant describes this as “administrative lethargy” that borders on systemic irregularity.

4. Analysis of Technical Grounds for Rejection

The departmental report dated December 27, 2024, highlights a specific technicality: the use of an uncertified copy of the Khatauni³. Under PM-KISAN guidelines, a digitally signed or certified copy from the Revenue Department is mandatory for land verification.

Furthermore, the revenue records still list the deceased father, Rajendra Pratap Singh, as the primary holder. This points to a deeper issue: the Land Mutation (Varasath) process. The authorities must formally transfer the land into Keshav Pratap Singh’s name in the government’s digital records. If they do not, the PM-KISAN portal will flag the application. It will register the application as a mismatch with the applicant’s Aadhaar identity.

5. Allegations of Irregularities and Corruption

Yogi M.P. Singh has raised serious allegations regarding the “root cause” of this conflict. He cites both direct and circumstantial evidence of corruption. The circumstantial evidence, as argued in the formal appeal, reveals the “crying of corruption”. This is seen in the repeated delays. The local staff failed to reconcile family records despite clear directives.

The appellant notes that the government’s failure to correctly note the alias identity of family members is intentional. It is not a mere accident. This oversight is significant. The procrastination at the block level is another issue. These are functional failures of the local bureaucracy.

6. The Road to Resolution: Necessary Interventions

To break this stalemate, the following actions are essential:

• Immediate Land Mutation: The Tehsil must finalize the inheritance records to reflect Keshav Pratap Singh as the current landholder.
• Upload of Certified Documents: The DDA Mirzapur has given directions. The applicant must ensure that a certified Khatauni, Bank Passbook, and Aadhaar are re-uploaded. This should be done via a Common Service Center (CSC) to clear the technical flags⁵.
• District Nodal Officer Intervention: The District Magistrate and the DDA must exercise their oversight power. They need to ensure the Block Chhanbey staff completes the verification. This must be done without further “procrastination”.

Conclusion

The case of Keshav Pratap Singh serves as a reminder. Digital schemes are only as effective as the human beings who manage the verification at the local level. When a legitimate farmer lacks benefits, it is often due to missing “certified” stamps. Administrative delays in inheritance cases also contribute. These issues compromise the spirit of the PM-KISAN scheme. It is time for the District Administration of Mirzapur to act on the appeals. They must ensure that “administrative lethargy” does not become a permanent barrier to justice for the farmers of Nibi Gaharwar.

---

Would you like me to help you? I can track the specific response from the Chief Minister’s office regarding the email you sent today.

1. Key Application Identifiers (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

• Applicant: Keshav Pratap Singh
• Aadhaar: 8224 3509 7042
• Mobile: 9794089100.
• Registration Numbers: 20250119514266, 20250119512524, and 20250119192467.

2. Core Conflict & Evidence

• Official Status: The portal shows the application as “Pending for approval at Sub-District/Block Level”⁴.
• Contradictory Report: The Deputy Director of Agriculture (DDA) Mirzapur claims the Tehsil already rejected the application. It was rejected for failing to upload a certified Khatauni⁵⁵.
• Your Allegation: You have formally alleged that “Administrative Lethargy” exists. Conflicting reasons for rejection are presented as well. These issues are circumstantial evidence of systemic irregularities and corruption within the local verification process at Block Chhanbey.
• Inheritance Context: Other family members, such as Mahesh Pratap Singh and Aruna Pratap Singh, are already verified beneficiaries. This makes the delay for Keshav Pratap Singh (son of the same deceased landholder) inconsistent.

3. Immediate Requirement for Resolution

To bridge the gap between your provided records and the department’s requirements, the following steps are likely to be demanded by the DM’s office following your email:

• Submission of the 11 Khataunis: Ensure the versions attached to your email are digitally signed/certified copies. The DDA report specifically cited the lack of “certified” records as the reason for the prior rejection⁶⁶⁶⁶.
• Verification of Alias: You have requested the correction of the identity alias for Mahesh Pratap Singh in family records. This is to ensure the inheritance chain is clear to the revenue officials.

In the context of the PM-KISAN scheme and revenue administration in Uttar Pradesh, a claim about revenue records uploaded by a Tehsil being “non-authentic” or “unauthentic” usually indicates concerns with the document type’s legal validity. It does not refer to the truthfulness of the information itself.

The distinction between an Informational (UnCertified) Copy and a Certified Copy explains why a record gets flagged as unauthentic in your case. Since the entire digital Khatauni provided by the government of Uttar Pradesh is show-piece. No one can use it to claim public assistance.

1. The Legal vs. Informational Distinction (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

• Uncertified Copy (Informational): Legal Use. They use the label “Uncertified Copy” (अप्रमाणित प्रति) for general reference. These copies do not include the digital signature or physical stamp of the Tehsildar.
• Certified Copy (Legal): For government schemes like PM-KISAN, the Department of Agriculture often requires a Certified Khatauni. This document is legally authenticated by the Revenue Department. It uses either a digital signature or a physical seal/signature at the Tehsil office.

2. Reasons for a “Non-Authentic” Flag

A Tehsil or Agriculture Department may label a record as “non-authentic” or reject it for the following administrative reasons:

• Missing Digital Signature: If the uploaded PDF lacks a verifiable digital signature, it is treated as a simple paper printout. This means it does not carry any legal weight.
• Manual Entry Errors: Information on the portal may be considered unauthentic if it mismatches. This mismatch occurs between the digitized data (visible online) and the physical revenue registers (kept by the Lekhpal/Tehsildar).
• Outdated Data: If the portal hasn’t been updated after a land mutation (e.g., in inheritance cases), the displayed records may appear “unauthentic” since they no longer accurately reflect the current owner. Tehsil did not update the record in four years due to corruption, which is the root cause of this problem.

3. Administrative Contradictions in Mirzapur

Specific to your case in Mirzapur, there appears to be a systemic contradiction. The Deputy Director of Agriculture (DDA) has provided shifting reasons for the rejection of Keshav Pratap Singh’s application:

• Contradiction 1: One report cited the “non-uploading of a certified Khatauni”.
• Contradiction 2: Another grievance remark stated the “land record was not showing” at all.

This indicates that the record exists digitally on the Bhulekh portal. However, the Tehsil office may not have “pushed” or “authenticated” the specific entry. This lack of action affects the PM-KISAN database. It leads to the “under consideration” or “pending” deadlock.

How to Authenticate Your Records (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

To resolve this “unauthentic” status, you must:

1. Obtain a Certified Copy: Visit a Common Service Center (CSC) or the Tehsil office to get a digitally signed/stamped Khatauni.
2. Verify Mutation: Ensure the inheritance (Varasath) is fully recorded so that the name matches your Aadhaar exactly.
3. Physical Submission: You have faced “cryptic” rejections. You must often submit these physical certified copies directly to the DDA Mirzapur office. This is in accordance with Government Order 83/2022.

In a quasi-judicial context, a final order is legally binding. This is true in cases such as an inheritance case (Varasath) settled by a Tehsildar or Revenue Court. It is authentic. However, the administrative “gap” between a judicial order and the PM-KISAN database is where the label of “unauthentic” often originates.

Here is why your quasi-judicial records may be being treated as unauthentic by the Agriculture Department:

1. The “Data Sync” Failure

Even after a Tehsildar passes an order for inheritance, the Revenue Department (Tehsil) must update the UP Bhulekh database. This update can be done manually or digitally. (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

• The system flags the record when it passes the order. This happens if the “Land Mutation” (Namantaran) is not digitally “pushed” to the PM-KISAN portal, marking it as unauthentic. It still recognises the deceased father’s name as the owner with a remark that the concerned staff has processed inheritance.
• In your specific case, the Khatauni you provided shows the name of Rajendra Pratap Singh as the landholder. However, it also shows entries in the “Mutation/Change Details” section that appear “rejected” or “cancelled” (खारिज किया गया)³³³³.

2. Digital Signature vs. Judicial Order (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

While the outcome of the proceeding is authentic, the format of the document uploaded matters for the PM-KISAN portal’s automated verification:

• Uncertified Copies: The record you provided is explicitly titled “Extract of Khatauni (Uncertified Copy)”⁴.
• The Logic of the Portal: The PM-KISAN software only accepts Digitally Signed copies. It rejects uncertified copies. Even if these copies reflect a true judicial outcome, they are considered “unauthentic.” This is because they lack the encrypted digital seal of the Tehsildar.

3. Discrepancy in the “Reason for Rejection”

The departmental report for Keshav Pratap Singh (Aadhaar: 8224 3509 7042) specifically states the department rejected the application. The rejection was because he did not upload a Certified Khatauni.

• This suggests that the department is not questioning the truth of your inheritance. Instead, they are questioning the legal validity of the document used to prove it⁸.
• They are essentially saying: “The inheritance may be real.” However, “the paper you showed us to prove it is not a legally certified copy”⁹.

4. Administrative Lethargy vs. Judicial Fact

You have rightly pointed out that this is “circumstantial evidence of corruption” and “administrative lethargy.

• The Conflict: The Tehsildar has already recognized the inheritance in a quasi-judicial capacity. Therefore, the Lekhpal and Block staff must update the PM-KISAN portal. They need to perform the update as an administrative obligation.
• The Failure: The local staff is leaving the application “Under Consideration.” They are claiming a lack of “certified” records. By doing so, they are effectively ignoring the outcome of those judicial proceedings.

---

Recommended Legal Response

Since your records are the result of quasi-judicial proceedings, you should challenge the “unauthentic” label by: (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

1. Demanding a “Certified Extract” (Nakal): Obtain the formal certified copy of the Mutation Order (Amaldaramad) from the Tehsil.
2. Filing a Formal Rejoinder: Use the email you sent to the DM and CM. Argue that, “Under Section 33/35 of the UP Revenue Code, the inheritance is a settled judicial fact.” For the Agriculture Department to label these records as ‘unauthentic’ is a violation of the Revenue Court’s order”.

In a legal and administrative framework, canceling or rejecting an application without proper verification is a breach of natural justice. This is especially true when the applicant has fulfilled their duty of disclosure. It also breaches administrative law.

Based on your documents and the specific situation in Mirzapur, here is why the current “cancellation” or “pending” status for Keshav Pratap Singh cannot be justified:

1. The Principle of “Burden of Proof” vs. “Burden of Verification”

• Applicant’s Duty: You have fulfilled your role by providing the registration numbers (20250119514266, etc.) and the associated land details.
• Staff’s Duty: The PM-KISAN guidelines and the central appeal response explicitly state that the State Government authorities are entirely responsible. The Tehsil and District Nodal Officer must identify and verify eligible farmers.
• The Violation: If the staff claims a document is “unauthentic” or “missing,” they must perform their statutory duty. They need to verify the document against the Tehsil’s own internal records. Otherwise, they are shifting their administrative burden onto the citizen.

2. The Legal Weight of Quasi-Judicial Outcomes (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

Since the land records are the result of inheritance proceedings (Varasath), they carry the weight of a legal order.

• Self-Contradiction: The Deputy Director of Agriculture labels a record “unauthentic,” yet that same record comes from the Tehsildar’s office. This situation creates a contradiction within the same government.
• Arbitrary Action: Cancelling or stalling an application because the applicant uploaded an “uncertified” copy is arbitrary and capricious. This becomes particularly evident when the original certified record lies just a few desks away in the same Tehsil. Such actions violate the principles outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. Administrative Failure in “Inheritance Cases”

The PM-KISAN scheme has specific provisions for inheritance cases.

• The guidelines require the state machinery to facilitate the transfer of benefits to heirs. This is necessary once the original beneficiary (Late Rajendra Pratap Singh) is deceased.
• The staff has left the status as “Pending for approval at Sub-District/Block Level” for over a year. This inaction is failing to execute a mandatory verification process².

4. Direct Evidence of Irregularity

The departmental report dated December 27, 2024, creates a “paper trail” of the failure³:

• It admits the application exists but blames the applicant for not providing a “certified” copy⁴.
• However, the report also acknowledges that you were contacted via telephone (9794089100) regarding this matter⁵.
• The Missing Link: A government office holds the power and duty to perform its own “suo motu” verification. It should verify its revenue database (Bhulekh). It can confirm the applicant’s claim rather than rejecting it on a technicality. (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

---

Recommended Legal Argument for Your Next Escalation

You can use the following logic in your follow-up to the District Magistrate: (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

“The applicant is a provider of information; the State is the verifier of facts. The land records in question result from the Tehsil’s quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, the department cannot legally reject them as ‘unauthentic.’ Rejection based on the ‘format’ of the copy (certified vs. uncertified) while ignoring the ‘fact’ of the record constitutes administrative lethargy and a dereliction of duty.”

Here are the structured details for the application IDs. The details also include contact information and relevant web links, based on the comprehensive records provided.

1. Application & Reference IDs (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

These IDs track the specific farmer registration and the subsequent appeals regarding the delay.

• Farmer Registration Reference Numbers:
  • 20250119514266
  • 20250119512524
  • 20250119192467
• Central Grievance Number: DOAAC/E/2025/0045542
• Central Appeal Number: DOAAC/E/A/25/0001055
• PG Portal Reference Numbers: 60000240246059 and 60000240250862 ¹¹

---

2. Contact Details (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

These are the verified mobile numbers and email addresses for the applicant and the concerned officers.

• Applicant (Keshav Pratap Singh):
  • Mobile: 9794089100 ^222222222
  • Aadhaar: 8224 3509 7042 ^333333333
• Authorized Representative (Yogi M. P. Singh):
  • Mobile: 7379105911
  • Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com
• Departmental Contact Info:
  • PM-KISAN HQ Helpdesk: 011-23070685
  • PM-KISAN HQ Email: pmkisanhqrs@gmail.com
  • Grievance Officer (Arindam Modak): 011-23384309 | arindam.modak@gov.in
  • DDA Mirzapur Email: ddamzp2012@gmail.com
  • District Magistrate Mirzapur Email: dmmir@nic.in
  • Chief Minister UP Email: cmup@nic.in

---

3. Essential Web Links

Use these links to check the status or file further escalations.

• PM-KISAN Official Portal: [suspicious link removed]
  • Used for checking “Status of Self Registered Farmer.” ⁴⁴⁴⁴
• UP Agriculture Portal:upagriculture.com
  • Used for verifying the local “Farmer Registration” (Kisan Panjikaran).
• UP Bhulekh (Land Records):upbhulekh.gov.in
  • Used to view the Khatauni and verify if the inheritance (Varasath) has been updated. ⁵⁵⁵⁵
• UP Jansunwai (IGRS):jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • The primary portal for filing complaints against the local Mirzapur administration. ⁶⁶⁶⁶

---

Summary Table for Quick Reference (Administrative Lethargy or Systemic Corruption)

Entity	Detail	Purpose
Primary App ID	20250119514266	PM-KISAN Registration
Aadhaar No.	XXXX-XXXX-7042	Identity Verification
Tehsil Status	“Pending/Rejected”	Local Verification Status
Grievance	DOAAC/E/2025/0045542	Record of Delay Complaint