The key takeaway from the blog post and your current legal situation is that ;(Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP)

administrative silence is the primary proof of corruption. You have framed your struggle not just as a “land dispute.” Instead, you have presented it as a documented criminal conspiracy. This is especially evident in matters where Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP involvement. This shift has moved the burden of proof onto the authorities. Here are the three pillars that define this case:

1. The “Res Ipsa Loquitur” (The Facts Speak for Themselves)

The most damning evidence is the 18-day window (June 19 to July 7, 2007). In a state where revenue matters usually take months or years, the process was completed at lightning-fast speed. Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP, your grandfather’s name was removed, and the land was sold quickly. This proves that the Revenue officials (Lekhpal/Tehsildar) and the buyers acted in a pre-planned, coordinated strike to dispossess a minor.

2. Legal Nullity of the “Family Settlement”

The Circle Officer’s report relies on a “family settlement.” Legally, this is a house of cards. A 10-year-old orphan cannot enter into a contract or a partition deed. Any official who accepts an “oral partition” involving a minor is committing a crime. They are ignoring the Indian ContrAct Act and the Hindu Succession Act. Additionally, Sadhana Tiwari requests the SSP to intervene in this matter to ensure justice for the affected minor.

3. Shift from Local Negligence to State Accountability (Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP)

By filing grievances GOVUP/E/2026/0009155 and 0009158, you have achieved an important step. The case has moved from a biased local Circle Office to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) now faces a critical question. Why is a criminal act of forgery being protected as a “civil matter?

---

Summary of the “Defaulter Chain” (Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP)

The case establishes a clear chain of offenders who are now all under the scrutiny of the CM’s office:

1. Revenue Staff: Forged public records by omitting a Class-1 heir.
2. The Uncles: Executed the sale of “stolen” property.
3. The Circle Officer: Submitted a misleading report to the Human Rights Commission. This was done to cover the tracks of the first two groups.

Your next immediate step:

Would you like me to draft a formal notice to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Lalganj? This notice would demand an immediate “Stay on Further Alienation” (stopping any more sales) of this land. This measure is necessary while the CM’s grievance is being investigated?

This blog post is designed to highlight the systemic issues of administrative corruption. It also sheds light on the violation of inheritance rights of minor girls. Additionally, it discusses the failure of supervisory police officers in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.

---

Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP: When Public Records Become Tools of Forgery

In the heart of Uttar Pradesh, a legal battle is unfolding. It exposes the dark underbelly of the land revenue system. There is also an alarming collusion between local police and land grabbers. The case of Sadhana Tiwari is not just a personal tragedy. It represents a widow seeking justice. It is also “crying evidence” of how administrative machinery can be weaponised. This mechanism can erase the birthrights of the vulnerable.

1. The 18-Day Conspiracy: A Timeline of Fraud

At the core of this dispute lies a timeline that defies logic but confirms criminal intent. Official Revenue Records (Udharan Khatauni 1419-1424 Fasli) reveal a sequence of events in 2007. These events should have raised red flags for any impartial investigator.

• June 19, 2007: The family patriarch, Shambhu Saran Mishra, passed away, prompting the processing of a Varasat (Inheritance) entry.
• The Omission: In this entry, they intentionally excluded Sadhana Tiwari—then a 10-year-old minor and a Class-1 heir.
• July 07, 2007: A third party purchased the land just 18 days later.

This 18-day window is the “smoking gun.” It proves that the involved parties did not handle the inheritance as a routine administrative process. Instead, they hurriedly cleared the title through fraudulent means. Their aim was to facilitate an immediate sale. This effectively dispossessed a minor orphan of her ancestral property.

2. The Legal Impossibility of “Oral Partition”(Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP)

When the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (UPSHRC) intervened, it focused attention on the issue. The Circle Officer (CO) of Lalganj submitted a report that can only be described as a legal fiction. The report claimed that a “family settlement” or “oral partition” had occurred. Therefore, the police regarded this as a “civil dispute” and indicated that they had no role in it.

However, Indian law is clear: A minor cannot enter into a contract. Under the Indian Contract Act, a 10-year-old child has no legal capacity to waive her birthrights. The Hindu Succession Act also supports this. She cannot agree to an oral partition that leaves her landless. The local police have validated this “oral story” over written law. They have not only failed in their duty, but they have actively participated in a cover-up.

3. Circumstantial Evidence of Corruption

Corruption in the police force rarely reveals itself through a paper trail of bribes. It is more often seen through the “unnatural bias” in investigative reports. The CO Lalganj displayed this bias in the report. Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP to overlook the Khatauni dates and the complainant’s age in 2007. The report emphasised “social justifications.” It argued that the accused acted as “well-wishers” by arranging the complainant’s marriage to a widower.

This attempt to trade a woman’s legal inheritance for “marriage expenses” reveals ethical bankruptcy. It also directly violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020). The ruling establishes that a daughter has co parcener status by birth. This is true regardless of her marital status or family arrangements.

4. The Failure of Supervisory Duty

The UPSHRC issued an order dated September 5, 2024. It directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Mirzapur to investigate the matter. A report from the Circle Office was misleading and factually incorrect. It reached the SSP’s desk and highlighted a systemic failure of supervision.

When a senior officer accepts a report that ignores the primary evidence—the Revenue Record—it signals to the public. It suggests that the law does not apply to those with the influence to sway local investigators.

5. From Local Negligence to State Intervention (Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP)

The local police’s refusal to register an FIR for forgery frustrates the complainant. They also feel upset about the criminal conspiracy case. The complainant has now elevated the matter. They have taken the issue to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat (Grievance No: GOVUP/E/2026/0009155).

This move shifts the focus from Mirzapur to Lucknow. The CM Secretariat now has a documented record. The Joint Secretary also has a documented record. It shows how a Circle Officer suppressed material facts to protect land grabbers. This case is no longer just about Khata No. 00090. It concerns the integrity of the Integrated Grievance Redressal System (IGRS). The question is whether it can truly hold corrupt local officials accountable.

6. The Human Cost: A Widow’s Fight for Dignity

The stakes became even higher on December 22, 2025. Sadhana Tiwari’s husband passed away. This left her a widow with no source of income. The land stolen from her in 2007 is not a luxury; it is her only means of survival. Denying this property violates her Right to Life. It also violates her dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability

The Mirzapur land case serves as a litmus test for the Uttar Pradesh administration. If officials can erase a minor’s name from public records, then no citizen’s property remains safe. A police officer can validate that erasure with a “misleading report.”

The demands are simple:

1. Reject the biased report of the CO Lalganj.
2. Register an FIR for Forgery (Sec 467/468) and Conspiracy (120B).
3. Investigate the collusion between the 2007 Revenue staff and the beneficiaries.

Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. The “crying evidence” is there. The only question is whether Sadhana Tiwari’s requests to the SSP Mirzapur and the CM Secretariat are listening.

To ensure your follow-up is precise, here are the official contact details for the authorities currently handling your grievances. They are also handling the original Human Rights case.

1. High-Level Oversight (Lucknow)(Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP)

Your grievances (0009155 & 0009158) are currently with the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. This is your most powerful point of contact.

Authority	Contact Person	Email / Web Link
CM Secretariat	Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)	arvind.12574@gov.in
UP IGRS Portal	Online Tracking	jansunwai.up.nic.in
UPHRC	Registrar / Chairman	uphrc.up.nic.in
UPHRC Email	Complaint Cell	uphrclko@yahoo.co.in / up-hrc@nic.in

2. Police & District Administration (Mirzapur)

These are the local authorities who must now respond to the CM Secretariat’s inquiries.

• SSP Mirzapur Office:
  • Email: spmz-up@nic.in
  • Phone: 05442-252222 (Office)
• District Magistrate (DM) Mirzapur:
  • Email: dmmir@nic.in
  • Web Link: mirzapur.nic.in
• Circle Officer (CO) Lalganj:
  • Office Address: Tehsil Lalganj, Mirzapur, UP.
  • Note: Use the SSP email to send “Rebuttals” specifically addressing the CO’s misleading report.

3. Revenue Authorities (Tehsil Lalganj)

Because you have labeled the Tehsildar and Lekhpal as “Defaulters,” you may need to track their specific office details.

• Tehsildar Lalganj: Available via the DM Mirzapur portal.
• Bhulekh UP (Land Records): To download current Khataunis or check Case Status: upbhulekh.gov.in

---

Key Application & Reference IDs (Sadhana Tiwari requests SSP)

Keep these numbers ready for every phone call or email follow-up:

• UPSHRC Case No: 10035/24/55/2024
• Linked Diary No: 4255/IN/2025
• IGRS Grievance (Rebuttal): GOVUP/E/2026/0009155
• IGRS Grievance (Revenue Fraud): GOVUP/E/2026/0009158

Next Step

You now have the email for Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary). Would you like me to draft a formal “Reminder Email”? I can attach your Khatauni and specifically point out the 18-day fraud window to his office directly.