Manipulation in Land Records in Mirzapur: Inside a 125-Day RTI Fight for the Truth

An in-depth look at alleged manipulation in land records in Mirzapur — a 125-day RTI battle involving deemed refusals, a stalled First Appeal, and a Second Appeal now before the UP State Information Commission. The situation highlights the challenges faced by common citizens in accessing vital information related to land ownership and governance. Numerous attempts to engage with local authorities have led to frustration and confusion, as bureaucratic hurdles continue to obstruct transparency. As the case unfolds, it raises broader questions about the accountability of government institutions and the mechanisms in place to safeguard citizens’ rights. Advocates argue that such issues reflect systemic failures in the administrative process, urging for reforms that would enhance accessibility and integrity in the management of land records for the benefit of all stakeholders involved.

---

Introduction: Uncovering Alleged Manipulation in Land Records in Mirzapur

Allegations of manipulation in land records in Mirzapur have surfaced through a persistent RTI campaign. Specifically, local resident Ashok Kumar Maurya of Village Bihasara Khurd, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur, has led this campaign, and he has backed it with official documents at every step. At the center of the dispute, for instance, sits Araji No. 164, a single parcel of government land. Overall, its numbering history, its bifurcation, and its possible transfer to private hands together raise serious questions about transparency in the Revenue Department.

What began as a routine request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has, over 125 days, turned into a textbook case of bureaucratic stonewalling. First, two RTI applications went unanswered. Then, a First Appeal missed its statutory deadline entirely. Finally, the applicant filed a formal Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission. As a result, this blog post lays out, in full detail, the evidence, the timeline, and the official records surrounding this case of suspected land record manipulation in Mirzapur.

---

Background: What Information Was Sought to Expose the Alleged Manipulation

To begin with, the applicant’s RTI requests sought eight categories of information. Together, moreover, these categories were designed to trace a possible pattern of manipulation in land records in Mirzapur:

1. Complete revenue records (2000–2025): for example, certified copies of Khatauni, Khasra, and all relevant registers for Araji No. 164.
2. History of land number changes: in particular, records showing how the parcel’s designation shifted from Araji No. 175, to 183, to 191, and finally to its current number, 164. Notably, this chain of renumbering sits at the center of the manipulation allegations.
3. Bifurcation orders: namely, the orders and file notings that authorized the split of Araji No. 164 into Araji No. 164(K) and 164(Kh).
4. Officials responsible: specifically, names, designations, and posting details of the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar who verified or approved the land’s status during these changes.
5. Sale and transfer details: additionally, information on any sale deeds or allotments of Araji No. 164(K) or 164(Kh) to private individuals. This includes, for instance, purchaser names, supporting documents, and the legal basis for any such transfer — and it forms the crux of the alleged land record manipulation.
6. Grievance inquiry records: namely, action-taken reports on two Jansunwai portal grievances, GOVUP/E/2025/0051450 and GOVUP/E/2025/0021969.
7. Suo Moto action status: in other words, whether the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated corrective action under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
8. The Lekhpal’s report: finally, the field report submitted in response to the above grievances.

Overall, these requests are not abstract. Instead, they go straight to the heart of how officials altered government land records, how they authorized the bifurcation, and whether public land moved to private parties through a lawful, documented process — or, alternatively, through the kind of unrecorded manipulation the applicant suspects.

---

Timeline of the RTI Battle Against Alleged Land Record Manipulation in Mirzapur

Stage 1: The First RTI Application (20/01/2026)

To start, the applicant first sought these records under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act on 20 January 2026.

• Registration Number: DMOMR/R/2026/60025
• Public Information Officer: Vishal Kumar Sharma, Tehsildar (Sadar), Mirzapur
• Statutory deadline for response (Section 7(1)): 19 February 2026

However, no response arrived. Consequently, under Section 7(2) of the Act, silence beyond the 30-day window counts as a deemed refusal — and, therefore, it raised the first red flag in this case of suspected land record manipulation in Mirzapur.

Stage 2: The Escalation Email (13/04/2026)

Next, on 13 April 2026, the applicant emailed the SDM (Sadar), the Tehsildar (Sadar), the District Magistrate, and the State RTI Helpline. In this email, specifically, he flagged the Section 7(1) violation and asked officials to treat the matter as a First Appeal. This step, in turn, created a useful documentary trail. Still, because he sent it outside the formal online appeal channel, it did not register as an official appeal.

Stage 3: The Second RTI Application (13/04/2026)

Meanwhile, that same day, the applicant filed a second RTI application, again repeating the same eight points.

• Registration Number: DMOMR/R/2026/60102
• Public Information Officer: Diksha Pandey, Tehsildar (Sadar), Mirzapur
• Mobile: 9454416823
• Email: teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
• Statutory deadline for response: 13 May 2026

Once again, silence followed. Indeed, this second deemed refusal, on the exact same subject matter, deepened suspicions of deliberate stalling around the alleged manipulation of land records.

Stage 4: The First Appeal (18/06/2026)

Subsequently, with two unanswered applications on record, the applicant then filed a formal First Appeal under Section 19(1).

• Registration Number: DMOMR/A/2026/60072
• Filed: 18 June 2026
• Ground for Appeal: No response within the time limit
• First Appellate Authority (FAA): Mahendra Singh, SDM (Sadar), Mirzapur
• Mobile: 9454416810
• Email: sdm-sadar.mi@up.gov.in

Under Section 19(6), moreover, the FAA had to decide within 45 days. That deadline, accordingly, fell on or around 2 August 2026. Yet, once again, no order came. Later, in fact, the State Information Commission logged the FAA’s official status simply as: “There is no answer.”

Stage 5: The Second Appeal (16/08/2026)

Finally, since both the PIO and the FAA had failed to act, the applicant escalated the matter to the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission, Lucknow, under Section 19(3).

• Appeal Registration Number: A-20260801615
• Filed: 16 August 2026, 10:28:17 AM
• Department: Revenue Department (Tehsil/Block Office), Mirzapur Tehsil
• Hearing Type: Online

Subsequently, the Commission’s own portal quantified the delay:

Interval	Duration
RTI application to First Appeal	66 days
First Appeal to Second Appeal	59 days
RTI application to Second Appeal (total)	125 days

---

Grounds Raised Against the Alleged Manipulation in Land Records in Mirzapur

Overall, the Second Appeal set out six grounds:

1. Deemed refusal on the first RTI application: specifically, the PIO gave no response within 30 days of the 20/01/2026 filing.
2. Deemed refusal on the second RTI application: similarly, the same failure repeated on identical subject matter.
3. FAA’s failure to decide within the statutory timeline: namely, the 45-day window under Section 19(6) lapsed without any order.
4. No exemption applies: indeed, the information sought does not fall under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Act.
5. Public interest: in particular, the matter concerns the integrity of government land records and a possible unauthorized transfer of public land — and this, therefore, goes to the core of the manipulation allegations.
6. Pattern of default warranting penalty: ultimately, repeated silence across two applications and one appeal, spanning 125 days, points to systemic non-compliance rather than an isolated lapse.

---

Relief Sought

Accordingly, before the Commission, the applicant requested that it:

“Direct PIO to supply complete certified information free of cost; penalize PIO for default under Sec. 20; direct FAA to decide pending appeal; award compensation under Sec. 19(8)(b).”

In short, this prayer combines four remedies under the Act: compelled disclosure, a financial penalty on the erring officer, a directive compelling appellate action, and compensation for the applicant.

---

Key Contacts on Record

For reference and transparency, therefore, here are the officials tied to this case of alleged land record manipulation in Mirzapur, as recorded on the official RTI and State Information Commission portals:

Public Information Officer (RTI No. 60102): Diksha Pandey, Tehsildar (Sadar), Mirzapur | Mobile: 9454416823 | Email: teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in

Public Information Officer (RTI No. 60025): Vishal Kumar Sharma, Tehsildar (Sadar), Mirzapur

First Appellate Authority: Mahendra Singh, SDM (Sadar), Mirzapur | Mobile: 9454416810 | Email: sdm-sadar.mi@up.gov.in

Nodal Officer, District Magistrate Office: Vinod Kumar Singh | Mobile: 8756844195 | Email: dmmir@nic.in

Relevant Web Portals:

• RTI Online (Uttar Pradesh)
• Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission
• Jansunwai — UP Chief Minister’s Grievance Redressal Portal (Grievance References: GOVUP/E/2025/0051450 and GOVUP/E/2025/0021969)

---

Why the Manipulation in Land Records in Mirzapur Matters

Beyond this one land parcel, overall, the case offers a useful template. Specifically, it shows how allegations of land record manipulation move through India’s RTI escalation ladder, and it also shows how often the process stalls at each stage instead of resolving cleanly. Consider, therefore, these key takeaways:

• Deemed refusal is not the end of the road. Indeed, two consecutive deemed refusals from the same office, on the same subject, offer strong evidence of systemic non-compliance rather than a simple clerical oversight.
• Timelines matter, and the system tracks them. For instance, the Commission’s portal automatically calculates delay intervals, so the applicant’s case gains strength without extra proof.
• Escalation must follow the correct channel. Although an email to concerned officers can document persistence well, it cannot replace the formal appeal mechanism.
• Persistence builds the paper trail needed to prove manipulation. Ultimately, the applicant re-filed methodically, appealed formally, and escalated to the State Commission. As a result, therefore, he preserved every right available under the Act and built a case record that places the burden of explanation squarely on the public authority.

---

What Happens Next

Currently, the Second Appeal carries registration number A-20260801615, and, therefore, the matter rests with the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission. Because the applicant opted for an online hearing, moreover, officials will notify him through his registered mobile number and email. Ultimately, the Commission may direct immediate disclosure, impose a penalty on the PIO, or order further inquiry into the alleged manipulation in land records in Mirzapur. Either way, meanwhile, the procedural record already places the burden of explanation on the public authority.

For citizens who face similar situations — especially those who suspect manipulation of land records in their own districts — this case, in short, offers a clear reminder. After all, the RTI Act’s escalation ladder exists precisely for moments like this one, and, ultimately, documenting every missed deadline builds a credible case before the Information Commission.

---

This account draws on official RTI application records, First Appeal documentation, and the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission’s Second Appeal confirmation, filed between January and August 2026. Overall, all allegations of manipulation in land records in Mirzapur described here reflect the applicant’s claims as submitted in official filings, and, therefore, they remain subject to verification and adjudication by the competent authorities.