# Kishori Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1524
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-27
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2130 of 2026
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kishori-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54172
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

1524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint of the petitioner before the Commission was misconceived and, in fact, could not have
been entertained at all. Hence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order
dated 11.03.2025.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1524
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ C No. 2130 of 2026

Kishori Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
A. Whether the subsequent government order dated 08.07.2021 is clarificatory to the earlier one and, being
clarificatory in nature, can be used as a external aid to understand the government notification dated
02.08.2018 for the purpose of granting ex gratia relief in a case where the death due to snake bite occurred
on 23.08.2019.
B. Whether in the absence of a conclusive opinion regarding the cause of death in the postmortem report, the
claim of the petitioner can be sustained on the basis of consistent and statements of witnesses which find
mention in official proceedings, particularly when such evidence uniformly supports the petitioner's version
and the policy in question is a welfare measure in cases of State specific disaster/ natural calamity, which are
listed in government notification.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226; Notification dated 27.06.2016 bearing notification
number 303/1- 11-2016-4(G)/16, Notification dated 02.08.2018, bearing notification number-
UO 30/1-11-2018-4(G)/201- Petitioner's wife died due to snake bite and under the Government
notification dated 02.08.2018, and the petitioner claimed ex gratia payment of Rs.4,00,000/-

That subsequent legislation or policy can be referred to as an external aid to understand an
earlier provision, particularly when the later measure is beneficial, clarificatory, or declaratory in
nature and not creating any new right. It is an established principle of law that later legislation
or policy can sometimes throw light on the legislative intent behind an earlier provision,
especially when the later law clarifies rather than changes the position. Later statute,
amendment, or policy may be used as an interpretative aid if it explains or clarifies an ambiguity
in the earlier law or is declaratory or explanatory in nature or the same reflects the legislature's
understanding of the earlier provision.
2 All. Kishori Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1525
 The petitioner had promptly informed the police about the death of his wife explaining the
reason of the death as well. The General Diary entry records the cause of death as a snake bite.
The inquest proceedings and spot inspection conducted by the Lekhpal further corroborate the
petitioner's version, with statements of eyewitnesses confirming that the death occurred due to
snake bite while the deceased was working in the agricultural field. There is no discrepancy or
conflict in the statements recorded at any stage, and the postmortem report merely states that
the cause of death could not be ascertained, without contradicting the consistent evidence of the
eyewitnesses. In such circumstances, the principle of contemporanea expositio is relevant here
and reliance on consistent official records should be placed to decide petitioner's claim.

Held- Petitioner is entitled to relief under the Government notification dated 02.08.2018, read harmoniously
with the clarificatory order dated 08.07.2021, which is brought to control possible mischief under order
02.08.2018. The impugned rejection of the claim on technical grounds cannot be sustained and, therefore,
the order dated 02.08.2018 and 08.07.2021 are hereby quashed. (E-15)
(Para 18, 23 & 25)

Case Law Cited
WPIL Ltd. Ghaziabad vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut, (2005) 3 SCC 73; State Bank of India vs V.
Ramakrishnan, (2018) 17 SCC 394; Mahendra Prasad Agarwal vs. Arvind Kumar Singh and Others being SLP
(C ) No. 1714 of 2025;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; Notification dated 27.06.2016 bearing notification number 303/1- 11-20164(G)/16, Notification dated 02.08.2018, bearing notification number- UO 30/1-11-2018-4(G)/201

List of Keywords
ex gratia payment; death due to snake bite, Notification dated 27.06.2016, 02.08.2018; principle of
contemporanea exposition; rejection on technical grounds; cannot be sustained

Case Arising From
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner in view of the
Government notification dated 02.08.2018 and the government order dated 08.07.2021.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashi Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shruti
Malviya, learned brief holder appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a
writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to pay
Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner in view of the Government notification dated 02.08.2018 and the
government order dated 08.07.2021.

3. The background fact of the matter is that on 23.08.2019, wife of the petitioner, Smt. Raj
Kumari, while working in an agricultural field got snake bite and resultantly died. Subsequently, in
1526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this regard, General Diary entry bearing No. 015 dated 24.08.2019 was recorded by the police,
wherein it was written that the deceased had died due to snake bite. On the same day, inquest report
was prepared, and the statements of the witnesses got recorded, which indicated that the death had
occurred due to snake bite. The postmortem examination of the deceased was also conducted on
24.08.2019, however, the postmortem report did not conclude the cause of death as such and
recorded that the cause of death could not be ascertained. Consequently, the viscera of the deceased
was preserved and handed over to authorities for examination.

4. Subsequently, petitioner applied for the ex gratia payment, claiming that death of his wife
was due to snake bite, which stood covered under the Government notification dated 02.08.2018
for benefits in terms of compensation. According to the procedure, site inspection was conducted,
during which the Lekhpal interacted with people in village, who were present and had witnessed
the incident. Thereafter, report dated 23.03.2022 was prepared and submitted by the Lekhpal. The
report recorded that people present there had stated that the death was due to snake bite. Following
this, on 30.03.2022, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Konch, District Jalaun, wrote a letter to the
Additional District Magistrate, Jalaun. The letter relied on the Lekhpal's report, mentioning the onsite inspection and statements made by people in village, who were present at that time. People
present there, stated that the petitioner's wife while engaged in agriculture work in her field died on
23.08.2019 due to snake bite. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concluded as finding that
the case did not get covered under government notifications and, therefore, the petitioner was not
entitled to ex gratia payment. The reason for the rejection was that postmortem report did not
record the reason for death as snake bite, whereas the report, in fact, stated that the cause of death
could not be ascertained.

5. Petitioner also raised his grievance through the ?Jansunwai Portal? by filing online
complaints bearing reference Nos. 40016522003379 and 40016522005028. He reiterated his claim
that his wife had died due to snake bite and that ex gratia payment had not been granted to him. The
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Konch, again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated
28.05.2022, referring the same Lekhpal?s report dated 23.03.2022 and the postmortem report dated
24.08.2019. The order also referred the Government order dated 08.07.2021, however, this time
concluded that since the death had occurred before 08.07.2021, the case of the petitioner?s wife of
her death due to snake bite would not be covered under this notification.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the death of the petitioner?s
wife was due to snake bite and, therefore, this case was covered under the Government notification
dated 02.08.2018, and the petitioner was entitled to ex gratia payment of Rs.4,00,000/-. He further
submitted that from the very inception, including the General Diary entry, the inquest report, and
the statements of people in village during spot inspection by the Lekhpal, a consistent version had
been that the deceased died due to snake bite while working in the agricultural field.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order itself referred to the report,
which mentioned statements of people present at the place of occurrence who all had supported
petitioner?s statement regarding the cause of death. It was contended that there was no material on
record suggesting any cause of death other than the snake bite and the rejection of the claim of the
petitioner was baseless for want of due without application of mind.
2 All. Kishori Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1527

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the postmortem report
did not attribute the death to any other cause and merely recorded that the cause of death could not
be ascertained. In such circumstances, the inability of the medical report to conclusively determine
the cause of death could not have been construed against the petitioner, particularly when the
medical evidence did not contradict the eyewitnesses accounts. Learned counsel submitted that
where there was no conflict between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony because
postmortem report did not state any direct reason for death. He further submitted that where the
medical report did not negate the version of eyewitnesses, the consistent and corroborated
statements of eyewitnesses deserved due weight, and the application of the petitioner should not
have been rejected stating that there was no document to support cause of death being snake bite.
He further submitted that the rejection of the petitioner?s claim for ex gratia payment was an
arbitrary decision and hence unsustainable in law.

9. Per contra, learned brief holder appearing for the State supports the impugned orders passed
by the authorities and submitted that the same is rightly passed in accordance with the applicable
government notifications. She contends that the petitioner failed to furnish any documentary
evidence along with his application to establish that the death of his wife had occurred due to snake
bite. She further submitted that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered under the
subsequent Government order dated 08.07.2021, as the death of the petitioner?s wife had taken
place much before 08.07.2021.

10. In the light of aforesaid facts and the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties, the question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the subsequent
government order dated 08.07.2021 is clarificatory to the earlier one and, being clarificatory in
nature, can be used as a external aid to understand the government notification dated 02.08.2018
for the purpose of granting ex gratia relief in a case where the death due to snake bite occurred on
23.08.2019. Thereafter this court is to consider whether in the absence of a conclusive opinion
regarding the cause of death in the postmortem report, the claim of the petitioner can be sustained
on the basis of consistent and statements of witnesses which find mention in official proceedings,
particularly when such evidence uniformly supports the petitioner?s version and the policy in
question is a welfare measure in cases of State specific disaster/ natural calamity, which are listed
in government notification.

11. To appreciate the issues that arise for consideration, it is necessary to trace the
circumstances leading to the issuance of government notifications. State of Uttar Pradesh issued
notifications to address problem of State specific disaster in Uttar Pradesh. In this regard the first
notification was issued on 27.06.2016 bearing notification number 303/1-11-2016-4(G)/16
providing for the modalities with respect to funds for expenditure to be incurred from State Disaster
Response Fund (SDRF). For ready reference, relevant part of the above mentioned notification is
reproduced below:

"2. Every year, a large number of lives and property are lost in the state due to
unseasonal heavy rains, storms, lightning and heat waves. Therefore, in view of the above
arrangement made by the Government of India, while cancelling Government notification No.
249/1-11-2015-4 (G)/2015, dated 15.04.2015 (as amended on 16.04.2015), the Governor is pleased
1528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to give his approval to declare unseasonal heavy rains, storms, lightning and heat waves as state
disasters.

3. Relief will be provided to the families of the persons affected by the said State disaster
as per the standards and rates fixed by the Government of India for the State Disaster Relief Fund.

4. Expenditure in connection with the above mentioned State Disasters under Grant No.
51 under the Account Head "2245-Relief due to Natural Calamity-05-State Disaster Response
Fund-800-Other Expenditure-06-Expenditure from State Disaster Response Fund-09-For other
disasters declared by the State Government Expenditure from Disaster Response Fund-42 will be
borne from other expenditure.

5. Action should be ensured as per the above decision taken by the State Government."

(Notification is originally in Hindi)

12. Subsequently on 02.08.2018, State issued another notification bearing notification number-
UO 30/1-11-2018-4(G)/2015, where snake bite got specifically included along with other natural
calamities. For ready reference the relevant part of the notification is reproduced below:

"2. In continuation of the above arrangement made by the Government of India, by
Notification No. 303/1-11-2016-4 (G)/2015, dated 27.06.2016, unseasonal heavy rainfall, lightning
strikes, storm and heat wave have been declared as State Disaster.

3. Hon?ble Governor accords approval to declare the following incidents as Statenotified disasters, in addition to the disasters declared under the Government Notification dated
27.06.2016, namely: unseasonal heavy rainfall, lightning, thunderstorm and heat-wave, as well as
boat accidents, snakebite, accidents during sewer cleaning, gas leakage, and accidents resulting
from falling into borewells within the State.

4. There has been an agreement in principle to declare human-wildlife conflict a state
disaster. Detailed guidelines in this regard will be issued separately.

5. The expenditure incurred in connection with the above declared State disasters will be
borne under Grant No. 51 under the account head "2245- Relief due to natural calamity-05-State
Disaster Response Fund-800-Other Expenditure-06-Expenditure from State Disaster Response
Fund-09-Expenditure from Disaster Response Fund for other disasters declared by the State
Government-42-Other Expenditure".

(Notification originally in Hindi)

13. Snake bite got included in the list in the year 2018 and with the experience, it was realized by
the State that certain clarifications were required to make the welfare scheme effectively
implemented and, therefore, the State through its additional chief secretary, has issued
clarifications, which was sent to all district magistrates by the letter No.-157/A-11-2020-
2 All. Kishori Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1529
04(G)/2015-TC dated 08.07.2021. For convenience and clarity, complete letter is reproduced
below:

"Very important
No.-157/A-11-2020-04(G)/2015-TC

From, Manoj Kumar Singh,

Additional Chief Secretary,

 Government of Uttar Pradesh.

To,

All District Magistrates,

Uttar Pradesh.

Revenue Section-11 Lucknow: Date: July 08, 2021

Subject:- Regarding the grant of ex-gratia assistance to the dependents of persons who
have died due to snakebite.

Sir,

1. In the above mentioned Government notification No. U.O.-20/Ek-11-2018-4(G)/2015
dated 02.08.2018, snakebite has been declared a State disaster, and it is provided that, in the event
of death due to snakebite, ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 4.00 lakh shall be granted to the dependents
of each deceased person.

2. It has come to the notice of the Government that, for the purpose of certifying death
due to snakebite, the viscera of the deceased is sent to a forensic laboratory for examination, and
during the pendency of the viscera examination report, ex-gratia assistance is not made available
in a timely manner to the dependents of the deceased. As per the opinion of the State Forensic
Legal Cell, there is no justification for insisting upon a viscera examination report in cases of
snakebite, and it has been informed that death due to snakebite is not established solely on the
basis of a viscera examination report.

3. In pursuance of the advice of the State Medico Legal Cell, and upon due consideration,
it has been decided that, in cases of death due to snakebite, since the viscera examination report
has no relevance, the following procedure shall be followed for the purpose of providing ex-gratia
assistance to the dependents of the deceased:

(1) A Panchnama of the deceased should be prepared.

(2) A post-mortem examination of the deceased should be conducted.

(3) There is no need to preserve the viscera report of the deceased after post-mortem.

(4) In case of death due to snake bite, ex gratia assistance shall be provided to the
dependents of the deceased within a maximum period of 7 days.

4. Accordingly, I am directed to state that, in cases of death due to snakebite, while
strictly adhering to the procedure mentioned above, all matters relating to the grant of ex-gratia
assistance to the dependents of the deceased shall be endeavoured to be disposed of within a period
of 7 days.
Yours truly
Manoj Kumar Singh)
Additional Chief Secretary."
(Letter originally in Hindi)
1530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Bare reading of the above noted notifications as well as subsequent communication leads
us to infer that the underlying objective of the State is to extend timely support to families who
have lost family member due to the circumstances contemplated therein. The scheme is in the
nature of a welfare measure intended to provide relief to persons in need. Therefore, while
determining entitlement under the scheme, rejection based on technicalities would be antithetical to
the very aim and object sought to be achieved by the State.

15. After discussion on background and underlying principle qua purpose of above
notifications, the issue for determination is, whether the subsequent government notification dated
08.07.2021 can be relied upon as an external aid to understand or interpret the government
notification dated 02.08.2018. It is a well-established principle of administrative law that
subsequent instructions, circulars, or notifications can be used as clarificatory aids in interpreting
an earlier policy, particularly where the earlier policy is beneficial in nature. Beneficial schemes or
policies of the State are required to be construed purposively and liberally to advance their intended
objective, and not to be seen in a hyper-technical or restrictive manner.

16. In WPIL Ltd. Ghaziabad vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut, (2005) 3 SCC 73,
the Supreme Court, while considering the nature and effect of clarificatory notifications, referred to
its earlier decision in CCE vs Wood Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 454. The Supreme Court
observed that where a notification is clarificatory in character, it operates retrospectively, as it does
not introduce something new but merely clarify and makes explicit what was already implicit in the
existing legal framework. The Supreme Court has held as under :

"15. The learned counsel for the appellant is also right in relying upon a decision of this
Court in CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. [(1995) 3 SCC 454] In that case, this Court held that a
clarificatory notification would take effect retrospectively. Such a notification merely clarifies the
position and makes explicit what was implicit. Clarificatory notifications have been issued to end
the dispute between the parties."

17. In State Bank of India vs V. Ramakrishnan, (2018) 17 SCC 394, the Supreme Court has dealt
with the issue of amendment which held to be retrospective in nature. In this case, the Supreme
Court has quoted the judgment in case of CIT vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1,
observing as follows:

"32. Let us sharpen the discussion a little more. We may note that under certain
circumstances, a particular amendment can be treated as clarificatory or declaratory in nature.
Such statutory provisions are labelled as ?declaratory statutes?. The circumstances under which
provisions can be termed as ?declaratory statutes? are explained by Justice G.P. Singh [Principles
of Statutory Interpretation, (13th Edn., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2012)] in the
following manner:

'Declaratory statutes. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable
to declaratory statutes. As stated in Craies [W.F. Craies, Craies on Statute Law (7th Edn., Sweet
and Maxwell Ltd., 1971)] and approved by the Supreme Court (in Central Bank of India v.
Workmen [Central Bank of India v. Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 12, p. 27, para 29] ): ?For modern
2 All. Kishori Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1531
purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common
law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The
usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a
judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes.
Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a Preamble, and also the word ?declared? as well
as the word ?enacted?.? But the use of the words ?it is declared? is not conclusive that the Act is
declaratory for these words may, at times, be used to introduced new rules of law and the Act in the
latter case will only be amending the law and will not necessarily be retrospective. In determining,
therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a
new Act is ?to explain? an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective.
An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to
the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory
of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. The language ?shall be deemed
always to have meant? is declaratory, and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear
words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the preamended provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to
clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory
amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the principal Act was
existing law which the Constitution came into force, the amending Act also will be part of the
existing law."

18. In view of the above principle, we are of the view that subsequent legislation or policy can
be referred to as an external aid to understand an earlier provision, particularly when the later
measure is beneficial, clarificatory, or declaratory in nature and not creating any new right. It is an
established principle of law that later legislation or policy can sometimes throw light on the
legislative intent behind an earlier provision, especially when the later law clarifies rather than
changes the position. Later statute, amendment, or policy may be used as an interpretative aid if it
explains or clarifies an ambiguity in the earlier law or is declaratory or explanatory in nature or the
same reflects the legislature?s understanding of the earlier provision.

19. It is also a well settled principle that statements, reports, and records created at or near the
time of an event carries a considerable weight in determining facts, particularly when there is no
conclusive evidence. In the present case, the General Diary entry, the inquest report, and the
statements of witnesses recorded by the Tehsildar and other officials immediately following the
death of the petitioner?s wife constitute contemporaneous records, consistently stating that the
death occurred due to snake bite. The postmortem report, though inconclusive, does not contradict
these records. Therefore, after applying the principle of contemporanea expositio, consistency of
statements indicate that they are reliable evidence in determining the cause of death, and the
authorities are bound to give due weight to such contemporaneous material while adjudicating
claims under a beneficial policy. Failure to consider contemporaneous evidence and giving undue
weightage to hyper-technical reasons like inconclusive postmortem is against well-recognized legal
principles.

20. Having considered this preceding issue, the next question that arises for consideration is
the nature of the order/circular dated 08.07.2021 issued by the State Government. It is clear from
1532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the bare reading of the order that it merely clarifies as to how claims arising from snake bite deaths
should be considered under the earlier policy to make the beneficiaries get compensation without
delay. It does not impose any new limitation, nor does it affect deaths that occurred prior to its
issuance. The principle regarding clarificatory notification is well recognized, and according to
which, a notification or circular that only elaborate the intention of an earlier policy is to be read
harmoniously with the original notification and the subsequent notification is especially relevant in
guiding authorities on proper implementation.

21. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the government notification dated 02.08.2018
clearly recognizes death due to snake bite as a circumstance entitling the dependents of the
deceased to ex gratia relief. It is also apparent that the notification dated 02.08.2018 is a Statespecific policy intended to aid in cases of disasters or calamities which are not included for relief
under other policies. The said notification, therefore, contemplates relief to families affected by
specific local contingencies, including death due to snake bite.

22. The subsequent government notification dated 08.07.2021 specifically addresses
circumstances where dependents of a deceased person who died due to snake bite were being
denied or delayed ex gratia relief on technical grounds, particularly due to the non-availability of
viscera reports. The notification explicitly clarifies that the absence of a viscera report shall not be a
ground to reject the claim and instructs the District Magistrates across the State to ensure timely
disbursement of ex gratia relief, preferably within seven days. Bare reading of the order
demonstrates that it is clarificatory in nature and intended to reinforce the objective of the
notification dated 02.08.2018, rather than creating any new policy. Learned Standing Counsel?s
argument justifying rejection of the petitioner?s claim on the ground of inconclusive postmortem
findings or unavailability of the viscera report is therefore wholly untenable. The clarificatory
notification was issued precisely to prevent denial or delay of relief to affected families on such
technical grounds, ensuring that the purpose of the policy is fulfilled.

23. In the present case, the petitioner had promptly informed the police about the death of his
wife explaining the reason of the death as well. The General Diary entry records the cause of death
as a snake bite. The inquest proceedings and spot inspection conducted by the Lekhpal further
corroborate the petitioner?s version, with statements of eyewitnesses confirming that the death
occurred due to snake bite while the deceased was working in the agricultural field. There is no
discrepancy or conflict in the statements recorded at any stage, and the postmortem report merely
states that the cause of death could not be ascertained, without contradicting the consistent evidence
of the eyewitnesses. In such circumstances, the principle of contemporanea expositio is relevant
here and reliance on consistent official records should be placed to decide petitioner?s claim.

24. Applying the principles discussed in forgoing paragraphs, it is clear that the order dated
08.07.2021 is a guidance to interpret and implement the notification dated 02.08.2018 in cases of
death due to snake bite. Consequently, we are of the view that the petitioner?s claim very much fell
within the ambit of the policy framework, and the authorities ought to have considered it on that
basis.
2 All. Kishori Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1533

25. In the light of the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled to relief
under the Government notification dated 02.08.2018, read harmoniously with the clarificatory
order dated 08.07.2021, which is brought to control possible mischief under order 02.08.2018. The
impugned rejection of the claim on technical grounds cannot be sustained and, therefore, the order
dated 02.08.2018 and 08.07.2021 are hereby quashed. Matter is required accordingly remitted to
the District Magistrate, Jalaun, with a direction to consider the petitioner?s claim afresh in
accordance with the policy, without raising technical objections regarding the inconclusive
postmortem report or unavailability of viscera report.

26. It is one of those cases where we find that documents speak volume of the merit of claims
for compensation set up by petitioner having discussed the provisions contained under the
Government Order and further policy with regard to grant of compensation not depending upon the
viscera report etc., we are of the clear view that claim of compensation deserves to be allowed.

27. There are authorities to the effect that if the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution finds facts of the case to be full setting merit of the case set
up by petitioner that it should not hesitate in granting appropriate relief instead of remitting the
matter for reconsideration by the authority. 28. In our above considered view, we are supported by
the recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 10.02.2026 in the case of Mahendra Prasad
Agarwal vs. Arvind Kumar Singh and Others being SLP (C ) No. 1714 of 2025, in which vide
paragraph 13,14, and 15, the Court has observed thus:

"13. Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad reflection, not our laws, but the
way we practice our laws and work our judicial remedies. We are not be mistaken as sermonising,
for such episodic disposal could feature even in the practice of Supreme Court. Our endeavour is to
ensure that we take notice of it and adopt course correction.

14. There is no doubt about the fact that the "consider jurisprudence", so routinely
adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is
counterproductive and harms the system.

15. When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow. The Constitutional or
statutory remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be
granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities is not to be confused with
avoiding or postponing the relief. These are not matters of law, but of its working and practice.
Unlike law and its procedures, good practices that evolve over a period of time are far more
precious than written laws, as it is in this practice that we see acceptance and internalization of the
spirit of law. It is necessary to recognize, nurture and develop good practices which become habits.
These habits come from the shared belief, values and attitudes that breathe vitality into rule of law.
Legal culture integrates collective beliefs, fostering habits. It is necessary and in fact compelling to
keep our remedies simple, effective and efficient."

29. In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The District Magistrate, Jalaun is
directed to accord benefit of compensation to the petitioner for untimely death of the deceased due
1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to snake bite. The District Magistrate, shall pass the order within a period of six weeks from the
date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1534
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Writ C No. 3256 of 2026

Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti & Anr.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether tenants, by continuing in occupation and asserting tenancy rights, can prevent or delay demolition of
a building declared dangerous under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959.

HEADNOTE
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959 - ss.331, 334 - U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises
Tenancy Act, 2021 - s.21 - Dangerous and dilapidated building - Demolition - Tenancy rights
vis-à-vis public safety - Vacation of premises

Held: Petitioner-Samiti was the owner of a building which had become highly dilapidated and posed
imminent danger to passers-by and occupants, and a notice dated 03.08.2021 was issued under Section 331
of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959 directing demolition of the unsafe structure - On 29.08.2025, a
portion of the building collapsed causing obstruction to traffic and risk to public safety - Certain tenants
continued to occupy the remaining portion of the building and instituted civil suits seeking injunction, though
no interim protection was granted in their favour, yet their continued occupation prevented demolition,
compelling the petitioner to approach the Court seeking a direction to the authorities to demolish the building
- Once the building had been declared to be in a ruinous and dangerous condition and a demolition notice
had been issued, the occupants were under a legal obligation to vacate the premises, and their continued
occupation, despite structural danger and partial collapse, was contrary to Section 334(3) - Municipal
Commissioner fully empowered to order vacation of the building and to remove occupants with police
assistance under Section 334(4) for ensuring demolition - It is well recognised that public safety overrides
tenancy rights, and a tenant cannot insist on continuing in occupation of a structure which is unsafe and
poses risk to life - Once a building is found unfit for human habitation, municipal authorities are legally
empowered to proceed with demolition, and tenants cannot obstruct such statutory action - Tenants cannot
object to expeditious demolition where the authorities have found the building unsafe - Accordingly, the
building having been found to be in a ruinous condition and posing threat to life, demolition cannot be
delayed on account of tenancy disputes - Respondent authority directed to demolish the building within the
stipulated time with necessary police assistance. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Nil