Allowed¶28

Rojan Nisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2026WRIC/11477/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttar Pradesh; Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana; Government Order dated 02.03.2020; Clause 2 eligibility/krishak definition; khatedar; co-khatedar; bread winner; landless cultivator; patta; batai; rejection of claim for non-ownership of agricultural land held impermissible; road accident death; empowered committee; respondent no.2; writ petition allowed; order set aside; remand for fresh order and release of due money within one month; Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed at this stage itself; order dated July 9, 2023 passed by respondent no.2 set aside; matter remanded to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order providing for release of due money within a period of one month. ¶28

Rojan Nisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim for compensation under the 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana' could lawfully be rejected solely on the ground that the deceased did not own any agricultural land. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

It is not a pre-condition under the Scheme that the deceased himself must own agricultural land or that his name must be found recorded with respect to any agricultural land; therefore the claim could not be rejected on the reason of absence of agricultural land recorded in favour of the deceased.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Under the Scheme, eligibility to claim compensation may arise upon the death of a farmer holding agricultural land under single or joint ownership, upon the death of a bread-winning family member of such farmer drawing earnings from the farm land, or upon the death of a landless person cultivating patta/batai land.

¶23

Key takeaways

The Court found it undisputed that the deceased had died in a road accident.ratio¶25
The decision-making process suffered a fatal flaw: once it was found that the deceased was going to do agricultural work and met with an accident while crossing the road, there existed no reason to reject the claim made by the petitioner.ratio¶27
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending by calling counter-affidavit at this stage; the petition could accordingly be decided forthwith.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 11477 of 2025 (Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ.), decided March 12, 2026 - Compensation claim under the 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana' (Scheme under Government Order dated 02.03.2020) cannot be rejected solely because the deceased did not own agricultural land. Clause 2 of the Scheme defines 'krishak' broadly: a khatedar/co-khatedar in revenue records, a bread-winning family member of such khatedar whose main livelihood is agricultural income from the recorded land, or a landless person cultivating patta (asami/government/private pattadar) or batai land. Ownership of land by the deceased, or recording of his name over agricultural land, is expressly stated not to be a pre-condition. With the road-accident death of the petitioner's son undisputed, and the deceased having been going to do agricultural work when the accident occurred while crossing the road, the empowered committee's rejection (order dated July 9, 2023 of respondent no.2) was found to suffer a fatal flaw. The writ petition was allowed without calling for counter-affidavit; the rejecting order was set aside and the matter remanded to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order releasing the due money (compensation sought: Rs. 5,00,000/-) within one month.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11477 of 2025

Rojan Nisha

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vivek Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 3

¶8

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶9

Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

Challenge has been raised to the decision made by the empowered committee that has rejected the claim made by the petitioner under the 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana' (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme").

¶11

Undisputedly the petitioner's son late Abdul Bari died due to road accident on March 23, 2026. Relying on the Scheme enforced in the State under Government Order dated 02.03.2020, petitioner applied for the payment of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

¶12

Presently, the claim has been rejected on the solitary reason that the deceased did not own any agricultural land. No other reason has been assigned. At the same time, it has been recorded that neither the petitioner had any agricultural land nor was a farmer.

¶13

Clause 2 of the Scheme is extracted as under:

¶14

"2- पात्रता ( कृषक की पिरभाषा )-

¶15

यह योजना उत्तर प्रदेष के िनवासी ऐसे कृषकों के िलए है , जो दुघर्टनावष मृत / िदव्यांग हो जाते है। कृषक का तात्पयर् िनम्निलिखत है :- (1) राजस्व अिभलेखों अथार्त खतौनी में दजर् खातेदार / सहखातेदार।

¶16

अथवा

¶17

(2) खातेदार / सहखातेदार के पिरवार के ऐसे कमाऊ सदस्य (Bread winner) िजनकी

¶18

WRIC No. 11477 of 2025

¶19

¶20

आजीिवका का मुख्य स्रोत खातेदार / सहखातेदार के नाम दजर् भूिम से होने वाली कृिष आय है।

¶21

अथवा

¶22

(3) ऐसे भूिमहीन व्यिक्त जो पटटे से प्राप्त भूिम पर अथवा बटाई पर कृिष कायर् करते हैं तथा िजनकी जीिवका का मृख्य साधन ऐसे पट्टे अथवा बटाई पर ली गयी भूिम पर कृिष कायर् है। पट्टेदार के अन्तगर्त असामी पट्टेदार , सरकारी पट्टेदार तथा िनजी पट्टेदार सिम्मिलत होंगे। "

¶23

Undeniably the eligibility to claim compensation under the Scheme may arise upon the occurrence of death of a farmer who may have held agricultural land either under single or joint ownership or on occurrence of death of any family member of such farmer who may have been drawing such earning by working on such farm land or such eligibility may arise upon death of a landless labourer as well.

¶24

Since it is not a pre-condition under the Scheme that the deceased himself must own agricultural land or that his name must be found recorded with respect to any agricultural land, the claim made by the petitioner could not be rejected on the reason of absence of agricultural land recorded in favour of the deceased.

¶25

In the present facts, it is not in dispute that the deceased had died in a road accident.

¶26

In view of the above finding recorded by the Committee, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending by calling counter-affidavit at this stage.

¶27

Clearly the decision making process has suffered a fatal flaw. Once it was found that the deceased was going to do agricultural work and while crossing the road, he met with an accident, there existed no reason to reject the claim made by the petitioner.

¶28

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed at this stage itself.

¶29

The order dated July 9, 2023 passed by respondent no.2 is setaside.

¶30

Matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order providing for release of due money within a period of one month from today.

¶31

March 12, 2026 cks/-

¶32

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rojan Nisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rojan Nisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akhtari vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar vs State Bank of India Thru. Bank Manager Ramnagar Balrampur and Another

Canara Bank Thru. Authorized Officer, Sri Rishikesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 7 Others

Sangeeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Gazal Brother Thru. Proprietor Mohd.Salman vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and Another

Mohit Kumar vs Asst. Director Dggi Lko. Zonel Unit Lko. and 4 Others