Disposed¶18

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2026WRIC/4717/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. — Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 4717 of 2025, decided April 29, 2026. Keywords: Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna claim rejection; farmer accident/death benefit scheme; husband not holding farm land in his own name; khatauni showing cultivation of ancestral fields; order held perverse, based on extraneous reasons; quashed; remand-style directions for fresh hearing and reasoned order within six weeks; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 writ disposed of; no case law cited.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; authorities directed to grant hearing, receive additional documents, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks. ¶18

Urmila Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order quashed and set aside; authorities directed to grant hearing, receive additional documents, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for claim under 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna' — on the ground that her husband was not holding farm land in his name — was sustainable.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Upon perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, the Court found that the petitioner's husband was working in the fields of his ancestors, a fact supported by the khatauni naming the deceased's ancestors.

¶12

Key takeaways

The impugned order is perverse and based on extraneous reasons not supported by the actual facts in existence.ratio¶13
The impugned order is quashed and set aside; the authorities concerned are directed to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, permit additional documents, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (WRIT - C No. 4717 of 2025, decided April 29, 2026; Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.) — Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of the petitioner's claim application under 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna', rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband was not holding farm land in his name. Perusal of annexures, including the khatauni naming the deceased's ancestors, showed the husband was working in the fields of his ancestors. The Court held the impugned order perverse and based on extraneous reasons unsupported by the actual facts, quashed and set it aside, and directed the authorities to grant the petitioner a hearing, allow additional documents, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. No precedent cited.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 4717 of 2025

Urmila Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And 3 Others	Revenue Deptt. .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ayush Kumar Verma, Vaishali Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 3

¶8

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

¶9

Heard Shri Ayush Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated October 21, 2024, whereby application of the petitioner for claim made under 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna' has been rejected by the respondent authorities.

¶11

The reason provided in the impugned order is that the petitioner's husband was not holding farm land in his name, and accordingly, the claim would not fall within the parameters of 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna'.

¶12

Upon perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, we find that the petitioner's husband was working in the fields of his ancestors. This fact has been buttressed by the khatauni, which mentions the name of the deceased's ancestors.

¶13

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.

¶14

In light of above, impugned order dated May 3, 2025 is quashed and set

¶15

WRIC No. 4717 of 2025

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

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

¶20

April 29, 2026 Ashutosh

¶21

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

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saleem Khan @ Salim Rashid Khan vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and Another

M/S Gospel Press Thru. Partner Mr. Rajiv Goyal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Merlion Sales Pri. Limited Thru.Its Dir. Authorized Signatory Susheel Kumar Pandey vs Union of India Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Commerce and Industry and 3 Others

Saurav Raj vs Sonakshi Verma

M/S Tara Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Navneet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another

Mohammad Farhan Ansari vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Finance New Delhi and 3 Others