Sangeeta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and 3 Others

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").

¶12

Undisputedly the petitioner's husband late Raj Kumar Singh died due to road accident on 10.01.2020. 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/-.

¶13

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.

¶14

Clause 2 of the Scheme is extracted as under:

¶15

"2- पात्रता (कृषक की पिरभाषा) - यह योजना उत्तर प्रदेष के िनवासी ऐसे कृषकों के िलए है, जो दुघर्टनावष मृत / िदव्यांग हो जाते है। कृषक का तात्पयर् िनम्निलिखत है-

¶16

(1) राजस्व अिभलेखों अथार्त खतौनी में दजर् खातेदार / सहखातेदार।

¶17

अथवा

¶18

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

¶19

WRIC No. 12331 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

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

¶22

अथवा

¶23

(3) ऐसे भूिम हीन व्यिक्त जो पटटे से प्राप्त भूिम पर अथवा बटाई पर कृिष कायर् करते हैं हैं तथा िजनकी जीिव का का मृख्य साधन ऐसे पट् ट ेे अथवा बटाई पर ली गयी भूिम पर कृिष कायर् है। पट् ट ेेदार के अन्तगर्त असामी पट् ट ेेदार, सरकारी पट् ट ेेदार तथा िनजी पट् ट ेेदार सिम्मिलत होंगे।"

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

In the present facts, it is not in dispute that the deceased was going for agricultural work at the fields and while crossing the road, he died due to road accident.

¶27

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.

¶28

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 an accident, there existed no reason to reject the claim made by the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed at this stage itself.

¶30

The order dated 13.08.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3 is set-aside.

¶31

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.

¶32

January 27, 2026 Lokesh Kumar

¶33

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

¶34

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

Sangeeta Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and 3 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

Similar cases

Mohd. Mateen vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Prema Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

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

Kashi Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

M/S Lucknow Plastics Thru. Proprietor Maksood Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and Another

Mohammad Aftab vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others