# Nanhe Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1300 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-15 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 1637 of 2026 - **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nanhe-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54393 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 32.Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1300 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. Writ C No. 1637 of 2026 Nanhe Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the death of the petitioner's wife, caused by knife wounds inflicted by unknown assailants, falls within the ambit of "accidental death" covered under the Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna? HEADNOTES Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226:- Writ Petition under Article 226 - against the impugned rejection order whereby his claim under the Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna was rejected - petitioner's wife died due to knife wounds inflicted by unknown assailants while cutting grass in the field - postmortem report indicates that her death was caused due to knife wound - he claimed compensation with a request that her death should be treated as accidental under the scheme - he relied on earlier scheme also - rejection - writ petition - State opposed, arguing that the scheme's eligibility clause specifically enumerates covered accidental events and does not extend to murder - Court held that, the present Mukhymantri Yojna is distinct from the earlier scheme - and a murder or an incident of like nature as is narrated in the present facts and circumstances is not an accident as envisaged under the Mukhyamantri Yojna for availing compensation - held - murder cannot be treated as an accident under the scheme - though the scheme is beneficial but limited to its defined scope - hence, writ petition fails and is dismissed - however, court clarified that the petitioner may explore other government schemes for relief. (Para - 8, 9, 10) WP Dismissed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Smt. Bindu Devi v. State of U.P. & Others, WRIT-C No. 35148 of 2017, decided on 15.02.2019 (Division Bench, Allahabad High Court). LIST OF ACTS Constitution of India - Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna. LIST OF KEYWORDS Accidental death, insurance claim, murder, knife wound, ejusdem generis, beneficial scheme, eligibility clause, rejection order, writ petition, dismissed. CASE ARISING FROM Order dated 30.11.2024 rejecting petitioner's claim under the Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Zoheb Ahmed, Shravan Kumar, Tauseef Ali Ansari. 4 All. Nanhe Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1301 Counsel for Respondent(s): Ms. Deepshikha, Chief Standing Counsel. (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. & Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated November 30, 2024 by which the claim of the petitioner under the Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna (hereinafter referred to as the "the Mukhymantri Yojna") has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the said Mukhymantri Yojna. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's wife, namely, Nanhki Sharma died on October 6, 2016 as a result of knife wound while she was cutting grass in the field. The facts reveal that certain unknown assailants murdered the wife of the petitioner and the post-mortem report indicates that death was caused due to knife wound. 4. The petitioner relied on the Yojna that indicates that accidents 'bima'/insurance should be provided to the following persons :- "भाग-1 व्यक्तियतदुर्घटना बीमा :- परिवाि के मुक्तिया /िोटी 'अर्घकः की िेल/िोड/वायुयान से दुर्घटना, ककसी भी टकिाव, कगिने के कािण चोट, गैस रिसाव, सपघ काटने, कबच्छू नेवला, किपकली काटने से मिना, कसलेण्डि फटने के कािण कवकलाांगताां या मृत्यु, कवस्फोट, कुत्ता काटने, र्ांगली र्ानवि के काटने से मिना, र्लना, डूबना, बाढ़ में बह, र्ाना, ककसी भी प्रकाि से हाथ-पैि कटां र्ाना एवां कवषालता आकद दुर्घटना में शाकमल हैं। व्यक्तिगत दुर्घटना बीमा के अन्तगघत केवल परिवाि का मुक्तियाां / िोटी अर्घक आच्छाकदत है।" 5. A subsequent clarification to the Yojna has stated that if the person was under the influence of alcohol, committed suicide or was involved in any illegal activities during which the accident takes place, the same would not be treated as an accidental death. 6. The petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15th February, 2019 passed in WRIT - C No. - 35148 of 2017(Smt. Bindu Devi Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) in which the Court had allowed the claim of the petitioner therein under the Scheme of Samajwadi Kisan & Sarvhit Bima Yojana Kisan Accident Insurance Policy. In that case, the death of the petitioner-husband had taken place due to injuries caused by knife wound. 1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 7. Upon perusal of the present Mukhymantri Yojna, we are of the view that the events provided under the Eligibility Clause are specific and benefit can only be provided if the deceased falls within the said eligibility criteria. It may be noted that the present Mukhymantri Yojna is different from the Scheme that was in operation and was interpreted by the Co-ordinate Bench in Smt. Bindu Devi (Supra). Thus, the said Co-ordinate Bench Judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner. 8. Further, upon a perusal of the above Mukhymantri Yojna, we are of the view that accidental death caused due to railways, roadways and air travel would be included in the present scheme. If a person meets with an accident on the railway tracks, or on any road or dies in a plane crash, the same benefit would be available to the relatives of the deceased. However, this accidental claim cannot be extended to cases where persons are murdered. Even though, loosely termed one may treat a murder as an accidental phenomenon, however such accidents are not covered under the said Mukhymantri Yojna. The eligibility criteria has been specifically defined and the same can be interpreted for events which are ejusdem generis to the events enumerated therein. Surely, a murder or an incident of like nature as is narrated in the present facts and circumstances, is not an accident as envisaged under the Mukhymantri Yojna for availing compenstion. 9. No doubt, the said Mukhymantri Yojna is a beneficial scheme/Yojna, which provides for financial help to the needy, however, the object behind the said scheme is loud and clear, inasmuch it not only mentions the scheme is applicable for uncertain and unfortunate events, but also enumerates these events which ought to have happened with any person, before the relatives can become eligible for benefit under the said scheme. The said Mukhymantri Yojna is not applicable due to death covered by any reason, except as provided in the scheme/Yojna itself. 10. In light of the same, we are unable to grant any relief to the petitioner and as such the present writ petition fails. We make it clear that the petitioner may be eligible for other benefits under various other schemes of the Government as may be prevalent on the date of the death of the deceased and may avail the same in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1302 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. Writ C No. 1656 of 2026 Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents