Property Fraud & Police Accountability: A Case Study of Ancestral Rights in Mirzapur

Hindu Succession Law, particularly concerning ancestral property, is complex and ambiguous. This complexity leads to frequent familial conflicts. These conflicts often entangle citizens in India’s administrative and judicial systems. In Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, a significant case has emerged at the intersection of property fraud and police accountability. Naresh Kumar Jaiswal has persistently raised grievances and filed RTI appeals against his father, Ashok Kumar Jaiswal. These actions expose the challenges faced when contesting fraudulent property transfers.

---

1. The Core Dispute: Transitioning from Ancestral Rights to Alleged Property Fraud

At the heart of this matter is the legal definition of ancestral property under Indian law. It refers to immovable assets—such as land or buildings—inherited by a male from his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather. The property is passed down through four generations of male lineage. Legal heirs acquire an interest from birth rather than by later transaction.

Key Legal Principles at Stake

In this case, the complainant, Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, asserts that:

• Birthright: Under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, both sons and daughters acquire a right to ancestral property at birth. This right is irrespective of when the property is partitioned.
• A father cannot unilaterally sell, will, or alienate ancestral property because children have rights by birth. Any such action is voidable unless justified by legal necessity or estate benefit.
• The Central Allegation
• Ashok Kumar Jaiswal is accused of “cheating” his son by selling shares of ancestral land in Village Bhatevra (Area No. 203). Notably, a related matter (Criminal Misc. Case No. 915/2021) remains pending in the Family Court at the same time.
• Illegal Sales

The documentation outlines several calculated property transfers performed by the father. The applicant views these transfers as deliberate and fraudulent. They aim to influence judicial proceedings and evade financial obligations, such as maintenance. The applicant claims these transactions occurred despite the property remaining unpartitioned and under his legal share.

---

Next, the case highlights a critical question of police accountability. Is this simply a civil dispute? Or does it rise to the level of criminal property fraud?

The Mirzapur Police repeatedly refuse to treat the complaint as a criminal matter. This refusal raises concerns about police accountability. The applicant wants charges pressed under BNS 318 (4) (Cheating) and Criminal Breach of Trust. The applicant asserts the property transfers amounted to deliberate fraud. Despite these claims, the police continue to treat the situation as a civil dispute.

Police Investigation Findings

Investigations led by the Circle Officer (CO) Sadar, Amar Bahadur, concluded that:

• The dispute is a personal matter between father and son regarding the partition of land and a house.
• Revenue records currently show the land in the father’s name.
• The ancestral house is currently vacant, and both parties reside in Mirzapur City.
• Consequently, the police advised the parties to seek relief in a competent civil court rather than filing a criminal FIR.

---

4. Procedural Anomalies: The “Tension” at Bhatevra

On June 18, 2025, Chilh Police Station began preventive proceedings. This was under Section 126/135 of the BNSS (formerly CrPC 107/116). They cited “physical tension and acrimony” at the Village Bhatevra property. The concern was particularly about a temple within the house boundary.

Nevertheless, the complainant mounts a serious challenge through RTI:

• Jurisdictional Issues: There is a question about jurisdiction. Why did PS Chilh initiate action against a resident of Surekapuram? Surekapuram falls under the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali Katra.
• Evidence of Presence: The applicant has challenged General Diary (GD) No. 057. He is requesting mobile tower logs or signatures. These would prove he was actually present in Bhatevra at 17:59 hours on the day of the alleged incident.

---

Amid these procedural issues, transparency—and its limits—becomes a focal point. RTI emerges as a key tool in the struggle against property fraud. It also addresses gaps in police accountability.

Seeking clarity on inconsistent police reports, Naresh Kumar Jaiswal filed an RTI in February 2026. The response from Public Information Officer (PIO) Manish Kumar Mishra (ASP Operation), however, further increased his frustration.

RTI Response:

• Evasive Replies: For several items regarding sale deeds and affidavits, the PIO provided evasive responses. He claimed the information was “not related to the local police station.” He directed the applicant elsewhere.
• Use of Section 8(1)(j): The request for a certified copy of the Circle Officer’s investigation report was denied. The Public Information Officer (PIO) cited Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This section exempts disclosure of personal information if it has no public interest. It also applies if disclosing the information would invade the individual’s privacy. Sub-Judice Status: The status of the proceeding for preventive action under the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) is pending. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sadar confirmed this.

---

6. The First Appeal: Demanding Accountability

The applicant found the PIO’s “incomplete and misleading” reply unacceptable. They responded by escalating the matter via a First Appeal (SPMZR/A/2026/60025) on April 6, 2026. It was addressed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Aparna Rajat Kaushik (SP Mirzapur). The explicit purpose was to overturn the PIO’s decision.

The Appeal’s Objectives:

1. Direct Disclosure: Compel the PIO to provide the CO Sadar’s investigation report. Argue that a complainant has a right to see the report that closed their case.
2. Verify GD Entries: Obtain technical evidence, such as tower logs. Use this evidence to verify the accuracy of police claims. These claims concern the applicant’s presence at the scene of the dispute.
3. Legal Justification: Force the police to explain the legal basis for their actions. They must justify exercising jurisdiction over a non-resident in a preventive peace-keeping matter.

---

Conclusion: Property Fraud & Police Accountability — A System Under Pressure

The case of Naresh Kumar Jaiswal illustrates the consequences when property fraud is unchecked, and police accountability is lacking. It also highlights a critical gap in the Indian legal system. There is an unclear boundary between civil property disputes and criminal acts of fraudulent inducement. The proceedings continue in the SDM Court. They also continue in the First Appellate Authority. The case highlights the persistence needed to pursue justice. It involves the intersections of property law, police procedure, and the Right to Information. Justice depends not only on determining property ownership but also on ensuring law enforcement accountability.

Based on the provided documents, here are the identification and contact details for the public authorities and registration numbers involved in your cases:

1. Grievance & Appeal Registration Numbers

• Grievance (July 2025): GOVUP/E/2025/0083834.
• Grievance (May 2025): GOVUP/E/2025/0055717.
• Grievance (August 2025): GOVUP/E/2025/0089753.
• Police Reference Number (IGRS): 60000250184560.
• RTI Request (Feb 2026): SPMZR/R/2026/60057.
• First Appeal (April 2026): SPMZR/A/2026/60025.

2. Concerned Public Authorities & Officers

State Level (Uttar Pradesh Secretariat)

• Officer Name: Shri Arvind Mohan.
• Designation: Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
• Address: Chief Minister Secretariat, Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow.
• Email: arvind.12574@gov.in.
• Contact Number: 05222226350.

District Level (Mirzapur Police)

• First Appellate Authority (FAA): Aparna Rajat Kaushik.
  • Designation: SP Mirzapur.
  • Email: spmzr-up@nic.in.
  • Mobile: 9473567333.
• Public Information Officer (PIO): Manish Kumar Mishra.
  • Designation: ASP Operation.
  • Email: aspopmzp@gmail.com.
  • Mobile: 9473567333.
• Nodal Officer Email: addlspopmzr@gmail.com.
• Investigation Officer (C.O. Sadar): Amar Bahadur, Circle Officer Sadar, Mirzapur.
• Information Provider (RTI): Munendra Pal Singh, Circle Officer Sadar, Mirzapur.

3. Web Links & Portal Details

• Status/Print Detail Link 1: https://pgportal.gov.in/Status/PrintDetail/57277FBD00C4DECC13066CFFF7DE1DF9D1D398A2C03133D74EA3724EE14BC398.
• Status/Print Detail Link 2: https://pgportal.gov.in/Status/PrintDetail/57277FBD00C4DECC13066CFFF7DE1DF96C7BE15D16B52E7C8B45C38E8609FB86.

Related: Ancestral Properties Controversy: Legal Rights Explained