RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur: One Woman’s Fight for Answers in a Land Dispute Gone Wrong
In the small town of Mirzapur, a courageous woman has bravely taken a stand against the local authorities by filing a Right to Information (RTI) appeal that seeks to uncover the truth behind a longstanding land dispute. Her struggle, consequently, reflects a broader issue faced by many citizens; indeed, bureaucracy and corruption frequently shroud justice in ambiguity. Despite, or rather because of, the mounting pressure from influential figures who wish to suppress her claim, she remains undeterred, firmly believing that, ultimately, transparency is the key to resolving her case. Ultimately, this fight is not merely about land; rather, it’s a quest for dignity, accountability, and respect for one’s rights in a system that, all too often, overlooks the voices of the vulnerable.

A Land Dispute That Should Have Been Simple (RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur)

In June 2025, Sita Devi did everything by the book. She lives in Nakahara village, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. More importantly, she bought a small plot of land — Plot No. 31, measuring 0.0126 hectares — through a registered sale deed. Additionally, she secured a valid mutation order (Dakhil-Kharij) from the Tehsildar Sadar’s court. Consequently, officials recorded her name as the Bhumidhar in the revenue records. Thus, on paper, this was about as clean a property transaction as one could ask for.

What began as a simple property purchase soon turned into a full-fledged RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur. It shows how far citizens sometimes must go just to get a straight answer from a public authority.

Then she started to build.

According to her complaints, a group from the same village disrupted her construction. Specifically, she names Ram Sagar Bind and his family members as the main accused. Allegedly, they tore down her foundation wall, took building materials like iron pipes and tin sheets, and threatened her and her family directly. Unfortunately, the local police station offered no quick fix. Consequently, Sita Devi began a nearly year-long journey through India’s grievance and transparency systems. This journey reveals not only much about institutional accountability but also highlights her own persistence.

The First Line of Defense: Complaints That Went Nowhere

Sita Devi’s first instinct was the right one: report it. She filed a written complaint with the Tehsildar’s office. She also approached Thana Kotwali Dehat, the local police station, and asked for protection against the accused.

The harassment escalated on 02/06/2026 and 03/06/2026. Sita Devi made multiple emergency calls to UP-112, the state’s police response system. Response vehicles reached the spot — records later confirmed this. But once each patrol left, she says the intimidation resumed. Police finally registered an FIR (No. 0289/2026) two days later, under Sections 352, 351(3), 324(4), and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It named the accused. On its face, this looked like a turning point.

It wasn’t. Ground-level enforcement stalled despite the FIR. In one telling moment recorded in her later appeal, the Investigating Officer received an urgent call during a fresh incident of intimidation outside her home. He reportedly said he was on duty at a temple and could not respond.

Escalating Through the System: PMO and State Grievance Portals

Local redress failed, so Sita Devi took her case upward. Consequently, she filed grievances with the Prime Minister’s Office Grievance Portal (PMOPG/E/2026/0100624) and the Uttar Pradesh Government’s Jansunwai portal (GOVUP/E/2026/0070938). Both platforms laid out the same facts: a legally purchased and mutated plot, a documented pattern of demolition and threats, and a police force that registered a case but, unfortunately, never followed through. As a result, officials marked both grievances “under process.” For many citizens navigating India’s redressal systems, that status can stretch on indefinitely, leaving them with no clear endpoint in sight.

Filing an RTI Application with the ASP Mirzapur Office

At this point, the story shifts; moreover, it becomes less about one land dispute and more about a structural problem: how public authorities share — or withhold — information from citizens. Here, Sita Devi laid the groundwork for a formal RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur.

She filed a Right to Information application (Registration No. SPMZR/R/2026/60260) with the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur. Subsequently, the ASP (Operations) received it as Public Information Officer. In her application, she posed five specific and reasonable questions. First, who were the UP-112 personnel that responded to her distress calls? Additionally, could she obtain certified copies of the closure reports? Furthermore, who were the local officers that visited the site? Moreover, what did the station’s own inspection report indicate? Finally, and critically, had the accused ever produced a valid court order to justify halting her construction?

The replies didn’t just fall short; in fact, they contradicted each other. The UP-112 unit refused to name the officers attached to one patrol vehicle (PRV 8588), citing vague public-safety concerns. However, Thana Kotwali Dehat freely disclosed officer names for the very same incident, without hesitation. As a result, one police department applied two opposite standards to a single event.

Other answers proved just as evasive. For instance, one office claimed a query “did not pertain” to it. Furthermore, officials withheld the certified action-taken report because “investigation is pending.” Moreover, on the most important question — whether any court order actually justified halting her construction — the response remained vague. It confirmed only that a civil suit was pending and that police stopped construction for “law and order” reasons. Ultimately, it never produced or denied an actual order.

The First RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur — and a Non-Answer

Sita Devi filed her first RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur’s office under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. Specifically, she listed each contradiction point by point and subsequently asked the Appellate Authority — the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur herself — to resolve them. However, the response arrived on 23/07/2026, and it offered no findings on any of the five points. Instead, it simply stated that officials had “uploaded and sent” a reply by registered post. While the closure was procedurally correct, it was substantively empty.

Second Appeal: Taking the Fight to the State Commission

Sita Devi refused to let the matter rest. She has now escalated her RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur into a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) with the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (Registration No. A-20260800551). She filed it within the 90-day statutory window. The appeal asks the Commission to set aside the non-speaking order. It also asks the Commission to compel disclosure of the withheld officer identities and reports. Finally, it asks the Commission to consider penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act against the Public Information Officer, along with disciplinary scrutiny of the First Appellate Authority.

Why This RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur Matters Beyond One Village

Sita Devi’s case involves a small, specific dispute over roughly a tenth of an acre. But it points to something larger. Bureaucratic silence — vague exemptions, inconsistent answers, boilerplate closures — can function as a quiet denial of both information and protection. This happens even when officials technically check every procedural box. The RTI Act exists precisely to prevent this kind of institutional opacity. The State Information Commission must now decide whether to enforce that intent. Its ruling will shape more than one land dispute. It will test whether the law’s promise of accountability holds up under ordinary, unglamorous pressure.

For now, the case moves to Lucknow. There, the Commission will decide whether one citizen’s persistent, well-documented RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur finally earns her the straight answers she has sought for over a year.

Update: A separate RTI thread in the same case has since reached the State Information Commission too — this one over the police station’s blanket “case diary confidential” response to queries that were never case-diary material at all. See Police Case Diary & RTI: A Legal Analysis for the full breakdown.

RTI Application (Section 6(1)) (RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur)

Field	Detail
Registration No.	SPMZR/R/2026/60260
Transaction ID	SPMZRR20260000000323
Filed	04/06/2026
Disposed	26/06/2026
Public Authority	Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur
Portal	rtionline.up.gov.in

PIO Contact (per UPSIC record — more current than earlier office letters)

• Name: Rajkumar Meena, ASP (Operations)
• Mobile: 9454401105
• Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in

First Appeal (Section 19(1)) (RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur)

Field	Detail
Registration No.	SPMZR/A/2026/60050
Filed	04/07/2026
Disposed	23/07/2026
Portal	rtionline.up.gov.in

FAA Contact (RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur)

• Name: Aparna Rajat Kaushik, SP Mirzapur
• Mobile: 9473567333
• Email: spmzr-up@nic.in

Second Appeal (Section 19(3)) — Pending (RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur)

Field	Detail
Appeal Registration No.	A-20260800551
UPICR Reference	UPICR20260005905
Filed	05/08/2026
Authority	Uttar Pradesh Information Commission
Address	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
Portal	upic.gov.in

Correction: I’d earlier guessed “upsic.gov.in” — the confirmed official domain is upic.gov.in.

Nodal Officer (SP Mirzapur office)

• Name: Rajkumar Meena
• Mobile: 9473567333
• Email: addlspopmzr@gmail.com

Grievance Portals (Parallel Complaints) (RTI Appeal Against ASP Mirzapur)

Portal	Registration No.	Filed	Link
PMO Grievance (PMOPG)	PMOPG/E/2026/0100624	08/06/2026	pgportal.gov.in — status check: pgportal.gov.in/Status/Index
UP Jansunwai (State)	GOVUP/E/2026/0070938	04/06/2026	jansunwai.up.nic.in

PMO also has a phone facilitation line for status enquiries: 011-23386447.