Gonda: Uttar Pradesh senior IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal, Divisional Commissioner of Devipatan, has issued a clarification following serious observations by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court over an alleged attempt to influence a civil judge handling a nearly three-decade-old land dispute.
In a statement issued through the Information Department on Tuesday morning, Nagpal denied exerting any pressure on Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan. She said her intention was only to ensure that the government’s interests were properly represented in a long-pending dispute involving government Nazul land.
The Commissioner maintained that there was no discussion about the merits of the case, its verdict, case number or even the specific name of the case during her conversation with the judge.
Her clarification comes after the High Court observed that the alleged conduct, prima facie, amounted to an attack on judicial independence and warranted consideration under criminal contempt proceedings.
What Is the Dispute About?
The controversy relates to the Jyoti Vidya Mandir vs Municipality case, which has been pending before the civil court in Gonda for nearly 30 years.
The dispute concerns several parcels of Nazul land, which, according to the Commissioner’s version, belong to the government. Nagpal said the lease over the land had been cancelled in 1985, after which the property was recorded in the government’s name.
However, she claimed that a lease over the same land has allegedly been shown since 2008 on the basis of a simple piece of paper. A private school is also operating on the disputed property.
The case was at an advanced stage of hearing and was being taken up on an expedited basis because of its age.
Nagpal said that her only objective was to ensure proper representation of government land and interests in the proceedings.
Commissioner Says She Called Judge Only About Her Leave
According to the 2010 batch IAS officer Nagpal’s clarification, she contacted the presiding officer only to ascertain when the judge would return from leave, so that proceedings in the old case could move forward.
She denied discussing the merits of the litigation or attempting to influence the judge’s judicial decision.
The Commissioner also maintained that there was no conversation regarding any particular verdict, case number or the name of the case.
She reiterated that she fully respects the dignity and independence of the judiciary and said that her action was motivated solely by the need to protect government property.
Nagpal also pointed out an apparent discrepancy in the judge’s letter concerning her service. According to the Commissioner, the letter referred to her tenure as 27 years, whereas she has served for around 16 years.
Civil Judge’s Letter Triggered the Controversy
The controversy began after Civil Judge Shabina Khan wrote to the District Judge on August 4, alleging that the Divisional Commissioner had misused her position and attempted to exert undue pressure on her.
The judge sought the transfer of the case to another court, citing the alleged interaction with the Commissioner.
The case was subsequently transferred to the court of Naveen, Senior Division Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gonda, following the judge’s request.
The matter later reached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which took serious note of the allegations.
What Happened During the Calls on July 15?
According to the details recorded by Civil Judge Shabina Khan in her letter, the interaction involved several telephone calls on July 15, 2026.
First Call at 1:26 PM
The judge received a call from an unknown number at around 1:26 PM. At the time, her seven-year-old son, who was using the phone to watch a video, answered the call.
According to the judge’s account, the woman on the other end asked where his mother was. The child reportedly replied that his mother was in the washroom.
The caller then allegedly asked the child his name, age and questions about his family. When the child asked the caller to identify herself, the call was disconnected without the woman giving her name.
Second Call at 2:32 PM
Around an hour later, the same number reportedly called again.
When the judge answered and sought the caller’s identity, the woman introduced herself as Durga Shakti Nagpal, Commissioner of Devipatan Division, and allegedly asked when the judge would return from leave.
According to the judge’s account, when she asked why the Commissioner wanted to know about her leave, Nagpal said she wanted to speak about a case pending before the court.
The judge then disconnected the call, stating in her account that she did not believe that a Divisional Commissioner should directly discuss a pending case with the presiding judicial officer, particularly when government advocates had already been appointed to represent the government.
Steno’s Call at 3:21 PM
At around 3:21 PM, the judge received a call from the number of her steno, Ashutosh.
According to the judge’s letter, he informed her that the Commissioner’s steno was seeking information about her leave and telephone number.
Third Call at 3:32 PM
Another conversation between the Commissioner and the Civil Judge reportedly took place at around 3:32 PM.
According to the judge’s complaint, the Commissioner allegedly questioned her manner of speaking and referred to making a complaint to the High Court.
The judge further alleged that the Commissioner questioned her conduct and upbringing and referred to her position as a senior IAS officer.
These allegations form the basis of the High Court’s serious observations regarding the alleged attempt to exert pressure on the judicial officer.
Alleged Threat to Get Case Transferred
According to Civil Judge Khan’s account, the conversation also included a statement that the case could be transferred to the High Court.
The judge said she responded that the Commissioner was free to seek such a transfer.
She subsequently approached the District Judge, requesting that the case be shifted to another court to ensure that proceedings could continue without any apprehension of external influence.
The request was accepted, and the matter was transferred to another competent court in Gonda.
Allahabad HC Takes Stern View
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court subsequently took serious note of the allegations.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that the alleged attempt by a senior administrative officer to exert pressure on a judicial officer through a telephone conversation was, prima facie, a direct attack on judicial independence and could obstruct the administration of justice.
The Court also noted that the alleged conduct could warrant consideration under criminal contempt proceedings.
The High Court directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate court after obtaining necessary directions from the Chief Justice or the senior-most judge.
The Court’s intervention came even though the original request to transfer the case had effectively become infructuous after the suit was moved to another court within Gonda.
Commissioner Denies Any Improper Conduct
Nagpal’s latest clarification now puts forward her version of the events.
She maintains that she did not attempt to interfere with the judicial process and that her communication was limited to ensuring the government’s proper representation in a case involving government land.
The allegations made by the Civil Judge, however, have already prompted the High Court to consider whether the matter should proceed under criminal contempt jurisdiction.
The controversy therefore now moves beyond the underlying land dispute, with the central question being whether the interaction between the administrative officer and the judicial officer amounted to an improper attempt to influence judicial proceedings.
The final determination on the allegations will rest with the appropriate judicial forum.
