A 55-year-old daily wage worker died while in the custody of revenue officials in Uttar Pradesh’s Aligarh district on Tuesday, triggering allegations of coercion by his family and prompting authorities to order an official investigation.
The deceased has been identified as Ilyas Khan, who reportedly had an outstanding loan of ₹1.47 lakh, along with collection charges, from a private finance firm. Khan’s family alleged that a tehsil team forcibly took him from his home without prior notice and that they were informed of his death barely an hour later.
Official version cites court-ordered recovery
Additional District Magistrate Pankaj Kumar said the recovery action was carried out following a court order after Khan failed to repay the loan. “An amin and other tehsil staff went to his residence and took him to the tehsil after he agreed to accompany them. Upon reaching the tehsil, he began vomiting and was taken to hospital, where he died,” Kumar said, adding that action would be taken against anyone found guilty.
The ADM said the court had repeatedly issued reminders to complete recovery proceedings, including initiating steps to auction Khan’s property. “The process could not be completed earlier, and the court directed the administration to ensure recovery,” he said.
Family alleges coercion and demand for money
Khan’s son, Firoz Pathan, disputed the official account, alleging that revenue staff demanded ₹20,000 from his father. “A tehsil team took my father forcibly without serving any notice. Within an hour, we received a call saying he was dead,” he alleged.
Khan’s wife, Shabana, acknowledged that her husband had taken a loan and was paying instalments, but maintained that the manner in which he was taken was unjust.
Police probe and postmortem underway
Pathan has filed a complaint at the Quarsi Police Station against five unnamed persons. Station House Officer Narender Sharma said the complaint is being examined and an investigation is underway.
The body has been sent for postmortem examination. Officials said further action would be decided after the report is received. The incident has raised fresh questions about recovery practices and safeguards during enforcement actions involving vulnerable borrowers.