Questions Raised Over Raigarh Revenue Department: Incomplete Documents, Additional Charges, and Allegation of Calling a Representation a “Drama”
Raigarh: An applicant had to approach multiple levels of the administration, from the Copying Section of the Raigarh Collectorate to the Additional Collector, in order to obtain certified copies of documents under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The applicant alleges that not only were incomplete documents provided, but additional charges were also collected. The matter has raised serious questions regarding the functioning of the Revenue Department and the district administration’s commitment to transparency and citizens’ access to information.
Application and Alleged Additional Charges
Applicant Bhanu Pratap Mishra submitted an application on 8 September 2026 before the Land Records Copying Section, Raigarh, under Section 256 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, seeking certified copies of all documents related to a case decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh, during 1966–67. A receipt of ₹100 was duly obtained.
On the following day, 9 September 2026, an official of the Copying Section, identified as Yadav Babu, allegedly informed the applicant that the department’s printer was not functioning and that photocopies would have to be arranged externally. Consequently, in addition to the ₹100 receipt amount, the applicant was allegedly required to pay ₹300 towards court-fee stamps and photocopying charges. The applicant further alleges that only incomplete certified copies of the case records were provided.
“I Will Be Suspended” — Explanation Regarding Missing Documents
When the applicant questioned why the records supplied were incomplete, Yadav Babu allegedly stated that certified copies of the orders passed by the then Collector and Commissioner, which were attached to the case file, could not be provided because doing so would result in his suspension.
The applicant subsequently consulted several senior legal experts. According to the applicant, these experts expressed the view that the explanation was intended to delay and discourage access to the documents. They further remarked that while public authorities may possess extensive powers, those powers cannot be exercised beyond what is legally and logically permissible.
Resort to the Right to Information Act and Transfer to the Tehsildar
In an effort to obtain the documents, the applicant submitted a formal application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 16 September 2026 to the Public Information Officer, Collectorate, Raigarh.
The application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 by Ms. Shilpa Bhagat, Deputy Collector and District Public Information Officer, Raigarh, to the Tehsildar and Assistant Public Information Officer. Written intimation regarding the transfer was provided to the applicant through the inward-outward section of the Collectorate on 25 September 2026.
Complaint Before the Additional Collector; Representation Allegedly Described as a “Drama”
After receiving the written communication, the applicant approached Additional Collector Ravi Rahi and made an oral complaint. According to the applicant, Mr. Rahi summoned the concerned official from the Copying Section and directed that a fresh application under Section 256 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 be accepted and that certified copies of the documents be supplied before the following Wednesday.
However, the applicant alleges that when he attempted to explain the difficulties he had faced, his representation was dismissed and referred to as a “drama,” causing him considerable distress.
Serious Questions Raised
The incident has given rise to several questions. In a district where citizens reportedly have direct access to the Collector without the need for prior slips or appointments, and where public grievances are often addressed personally by the Collector, the applicant asks whether it is appropriate for a public servant to describe a citizen’s representation as a “drama.”
The transfer of the RTI application to the Tehsildar has also prompted questions regarding whether the Tehsildar is the authority responsible for records maintained in the district archives.
The case has raised broader concerns about the commitment of the Revenue Department to the implementation of revenue laws and the objectives of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Additional Questions Raised by the Applicant
The applicant has also raised further concerns, questioning whether certain public actions were considered acceptable expressions of decorum while his own representation was characterized as a “drama,” particularly given the involvement of some officials in cultural selection committees.
The applicant expressed hope that, with Mr. O.P. Choudhary, regarded as a well-educated public representative, serving as the MLA from Raigarh, the matter would receive fair consideration and that accountability and justice would prevail. He further noted that he had participated in the democratic process as a voter during elections. The episode has brought renewed scrutiny to the functioning, transparency, and accountability of the Raigarh Revenue Department. Allegations of incomplete documentation, additional charges, and the characterization of a citizen’s representation as a “drama” have raised concerns regarding administrative conduct and access to information. The applicant has expressed hope that both elected representatives and the administration will ensure a fair resolution of the matter.
