Disposed¶19

Nasimun v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2026WRIC/1925/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna; claim rejection; recorded tenure holder; khatedar; khatauni; Gram Pradhan farming certificate; son working in father's fields; perverse order; extraneous reasons; Article 226 writ petition; State of U.P. through Commissioner and Secretary Board of Revenue Lucknow; order dated 04.04.2024 quashed and set aside; opportunity of hearing; additional documents; reasoned order within six weeks; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.04.2024 quashed and set aside; authorities concerned directed to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, consider any additional documents provided, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks. ¶19

Nasimun vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim under 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna' was rightly rejected on the ground that her son was not the recorded tenure holder.

¶12

Court's answer

Upon perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, the Court found that the petitioner's son was working in the fields of his father.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The finding that the son worked in his father's fields was buttressed by a certificate given in support of farming by the Gram Pradhan, and the khatauni mentions the name of the deceased's father as khatedar.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Court held the impugned order perverse and based on extraneous reasons that are not supported by the actual facts in existence.ratio¶14
The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2024.ratio¶15
The authorities concerned were directed to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to permit provision of additional documents, if any, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT-C No. 1925 of 2026, decided April 17, 2026 (Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.). Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Nasimun assailing the rejection (order dated 04.04.2024) of her claim under 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna' on the sole ground that her son was not the recorded tenure holder. On perusal of the annexed documents, the Court found the son was working in his father's fields, corroborated by the Gram Pradhan's certificate in support of farming and the khatauni recording the deceased's father as khatedar. Holding the impugned order perverse and based on extraneous reasons unsupported by actual facts, the Court quashed and set it aside, directing the authorities to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, receive any additional documents, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks; writ petition disposed of with the above directions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1925 of 2026

Nasimun

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner And Secy. Board Of Revenue Lko. U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

oar evenue o. ..	n ers	.....Resp	ondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Janendra Kumar Kumar Verma	Verma,	Deepak
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

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

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 04.04.2024, whereby application of the petitioner for claim made under 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna' has been rejected by the respondent authorities.

¶12

The reason provided in the impugned order is that the petitioner's son was not the recorded tenure holder, and accordingly, the claim would not fall within the parameters of 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna'.

¶13

Upon perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, we find that the petitioner's son was working in the fields of his father. This fact has been buttressed by a certificate given in support of farming by Gram Pradhan and the khatauni also mentions the name of the deceased's father as khatedar.

¶14

In view of above, we are of the view that the impugned order is perverse and based on extraneous reasons that are not supported by the actual facts in existence.

¶15

In light of above, impugned order dated 04.04 2024 is quashed and set

¶16

WRIC No. 1925 of 2026

¶17

¶18

aside with direction to the authorities concerned to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as for providing additional documents, if any, and thereafter pass reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date.

¶19

With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

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

¶21

April 17, 2026 Ashutosh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nasimun v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasimun v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 4 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

Ijamamul Haq vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs Govtt. of India and 4 Others

Mahanth Dinesh Das Alias Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tourism Lko. and 4 Others

Sarwar Jahan vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Manju Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Surendra Pal Verma vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Railway Board New Delhi and 2 Others

Kanchan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others