Disposed

Fatima v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2026WRIC/1881/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of claim under Mukhyamantri Kisan Durghatna Kalyan Yojna on the ground that the deceased was not a land owner. The Court held the authority should have considered that the deceased was a Bataidar under clause 2(3) of the Scheme, quashed the impugned order and directed fresh consideration after hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Fatima vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1881 of 2026

Fatima

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Faizal Hashmi, Shrddha Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 3

¶10

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶12

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has sought for the following substantial relief(s):-

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, by which he has rejected the claim of the petitioner under "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana, 2020."

¶14

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has annexed the order passed by the authority concerned dated 30.03.2024 as Annexure No.1 to the wit petition. The reason provided in the said order is that the deceased was not a land owner and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Durghatna Kalyan Yojna was rejected.

¶15

4 . We are of the view that the authority should have considered the claim of the petitioner that the deceased was the Bataidar and would fall under clause 2(3) of Mukhyamantri Kisan Durghatna Kalyan Yojna.

¶16

5. In light of the same, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from date in accordance with law.

¶17

WRIC No. 1881 of 2026

¶18

¶19

6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

April 9, 2026 Praveen

¶21

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶22

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

Fatima v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Fatima v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit vs Union of India Thru.Secy.Ministry of Elec. and Information Technology New Delhi and Another

Chandrahas Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home General Lko and Another

Shishupal Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kamini Shrivastva vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Shardendu Prakash Ojha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S City Culture Having Its Office at Seventh Thru Its Partner Arun Gupta vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi and Another