Logo

Allahabad HC Questions UP Government’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Stand After Two Contradictory Revenue Orders Surface

Shivam Y.

The Allahabad High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the State Government's inquiry into two contradictory revenue orders, directed the Principal Secretary to file a personal affidavit, and sought clarity on the Government's anti-corruption policy. - Shiv Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Advertisement
Allahabad HC Questions UP Government’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Stand After Two Contradictory Revenue Orders Surface
Join Telegram

Expressing serious concern over the manner in which a revenue dispute was handled, the Allahabad High Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government's response after two completely contradictory orders were found to have been issued in the same case on the same day. The Court observed that the issue appeared to be much more serious than a case of mere negligence and sought a personal affidavit from the Principal Secretary (Revenue) explaining the Government's "Zero Tolerance Policy" against corruption.

Background of the Case

The petition was filed by Shiv Narayan Tiwari, seeking action over an alleged irregularity in proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Deoria. According to the petitioner, two separate final orders dated 17 August 2023 were passed in the same revenue case concerning correction of land records.

Advertisement

One order accepted the petitioner's claim and directed correction of revenue entries, while another order of the same date dismissed the claim on merits. Earlier proceedings before the High Court had already noted that both orders were entirely opposite in their conclusions, prompting directions for a detailed departmental inquiry.

Following those directions, the State Government submitted an inquiry report stating that an unsigned order had been mistakenly uploaded by the Bench Secretary. The report further indicated that departmental proceedings had been recommended against the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Yogesh Kumar Gaur, for negligence in ensuring that the correct signed order was uploaded.

Court Finds Inquiry Unsatisfactory

Justice Kshitij Shailendra examined the inquiry report and found it inadequate. The Court noted that the report primarily treated the incident as one involving the uploading of an unsigned order, while failing to answer the more fundamental question of how two entirely different judicial orders came to exist in the same matter.

The Bench pointed out that ministerial staff such as a Bench Secretary or stenographer have no authority over the contents of a judicial order. Their role is limited to administrative functions and finalising what has already been dictated by the presiding officer.

Observing that the explanation offered by the State did not address this core issue, the Court remarked:

"The matter is not of negligence on the part of the officer, rather it is clear case where two orders were prepared by the officer so as to advance favour to one party and disfavour to other."

The Court further observed that the admitted facts suggested "something more than a sheer negligence."

Government Asked to Clarify Its Stand

The High Court recorded its "serious displeasure and anguish" over the manner in which the Government had dealt with the issue. It noted that while departmental communications referred to negligence by officials involved in uploading the order, there was still no satisfactory explanation regarding the existence of two contradictory orders bearing the same date.

The Bench observed:

Advertisement

"The Court records its serious displeasure and anguish in the manner in which the State Government has dealt with this matter."

It added that the inquiry report failed to inspire confidence because it did not adequately examine the circumstances in which two opposite orders were prepared.

Court's Decision

Finding the inquiry incomplete, the Allahabad High Court directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit placing on record all departmental proceedings conducted so far. The affidavit must also clearly explain the State Government's position regarding its proclaimed "Zero Tolerance Policy" against corruption.

The Court stated that it was not satisfied with the action taken against the concerned officer and clarified that further orders would be passed after examining the material brought before it.

The matter has been listed for 24 August 2026 for further hearing.

Case Details

Case Title: Shiv Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case Number: WRIT - C No. 38509 of 2023

Judge: Justice Kshitij Shailendra

Decision Date: 20 July 2026

Advertisement

Take CourtBook Everywhere

Access your account on the go with our mobile app.

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store
CourtBook Mobile App

Recommended Posts