Priyanka Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Distt. Magistrate and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Priyanka Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Distt. Magistrate and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent no.4, District Magistrate, Amethi to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure No.5) expeditiously, preferably within two months from production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, widow of a landless agricultural labourer who died due to electric shock, is entitled to compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, given that the in-laws' claim appears to have been accepted without considering hers. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4, District Magistrate, Amethi to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure No.5) expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him, in accordance with law, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 5), WRIT - C No. 11081 of 2025, decided February 26, 2026 (Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ.). The petitioner, widow of a landless agricultural labourer who worked on batai basis and died on 20.12.2024 due to electric shock, claimed coverage under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana; the claim made by the deceased's parents (her parents-in-law) appeared to have been accepted without considering her claim, and disbursement was pending. The Court permitted impleadment of the District Magistrate, Amethi as respondent no.4 and, the Standing Counsel not opposing the prayer, disposed of the writ petition directing the District Magistrate, Amethi to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure No.5) expeditiously, preferably within two months of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 11081 of 2025

Priyanka Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. The Distt. Magistrate And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Harendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 5

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he wants to implead the District Magistrate, Amethi as respondent no.4 in the array of parties in the instant writ petition and has prayed that he may be permitted to incorporate the same during the course of the day.

The prayer made for is allowed. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to do so during the course of the day.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was a poor, landless agricultural labourer and worked in agriculture on a batai basis. The husband of the petitioner died on 20.12.2024 due to an electric shock. The petitioner claims that being the widow of the deceased landless agricultural labourer, she is covered under the provisions of the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana.

It is stated that in this regard, a claim was made by father-in-law and motherin-law of the petitioner (parents of the deceased agricultural labourer) and it appears that their claim has been accepted without considering the claim of the petitioner.

It is further stated that the disbursement has not yet been made and in the meantime, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent no.4, District Magistrate, Amethi stating that the amount of compensation

WRIC No. 11081 of 2025

2

ought to be disbursed in her favour.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed if respondent no.4, District Magistrate, Amethi is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.10.2025 as contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, expeditiously.

Learned Standing Counsel does not oppose the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4, District Magistrate, Amethi to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.10.2025 as contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

February 26, 2026

Mahesh

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench