# Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1619
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 42092 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54183
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

2 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1619
they find any substance in the allegations of the petitioners, they will act in accordance with law for
protection of life, limb and liberty of the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners may lodge a report/complaint if anybody attempts to convert their
religion against their wishes, or by any fraudulent means, force, coercion, allurement, undue
influence or practice of misrepresentation.

(iii) The directions contained in the above Government Order dated 31.08.2019 are
binding upon all concerned authorities and shall be strictly complied with.

(iv) This order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the Police
Authorities.

52. No order as to cost.

53. Before parting with these cases, I would render my gratitude and appreciation for the
invaluable assistance provided to the Court by Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate,
as Amicus Curiae, ably assisted by Sri Subir Lal and Sri Sausthav Guha, learned counsels for the
petitioners.

54. The hard work as well as arguments advanced by above named State Counsels, are also appreciable.

55. I would like to put in a word of appreciation for my Research Associate Ms. Priyanshi
Hirwani, for her dexterity in research and superlative assistance in drafting of this judgment.

56. However, it is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the correct age of the
petitioners. It is further clarified, this order has not been passed to protect the petitioners against
any action or proceedings instituted in accordance with law.

57. Since the petition is being disposed of in limine, any person aggrieved by it is at liberty to apply for
its recall, if the order has been obtained by suppression or concealment of facts or on false averments.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1619
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 42092 of 2025

Pramod Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether rejection of the petitioner's claim under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna, 2020 on
the ground that the deceased was not travelling by train at the time of the incident and that it could not be
confirmed whether the death was accidental or suicidal, in absence of any evidence of suicide, was legally
sustainable.
HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana - Welfare
scheme - Claim for compensation on death of farmer in train accident - Rejection of claim by
authority - Claim rejected on ground that deceased was not travelling by train and that it could
not be confirmed whether death was accidental or suicidal and no evidence available to
ascertain nature of death - Reliance placed on report stating no information could be obtained
to determine suicide - Justification:

Held: Petitioner's father, a farmer, died after being hit by a moving train near a railway track and the
petitioner, being his legal heir, applied for compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan
Yojna, 2020, but the claim was rejected on the ground that it could not be confirmed whether the death was
accidental or suicidal and that the deceased was not travelling by train - Purpose of the welfare scheme is to
advance the object of the policy - Where the report does not conclusively establish the probability of suicide,
denial of benefit amounts to an arbitrary exercise of discretion - There was absolutely no evidence to show
that the death of the deceased falls under the exception of suicide - Rejection of claim unsustainable -
Impugned order quashed and matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 14, 15) (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8086;
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527

List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keyword
Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana; Welfare scheme; Accidental death; Farmer compensation;
Burden of proof; Absence of suicide; Arbitrary rejection; Mechanical order; Social security; Liberal
interpretation; Remand.
CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 24.06.2022 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidhuna, District Auraiya.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Shams Uz Zaman
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.
2 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1621
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the
petitioner seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Bidhuna, District Auraiya, whereby the claim of the petitioner under the 'Mukhyamantri Krishak
Durghatna Kalyan Yojana' has been rejected, and further praying for a direction in the nature of
mandamus to the respondent no. 2 to forthwith process and grant the admissible financial
assistance/compensation to the petitioner under the aforesaid scheme along with statutory interest.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2022, the father of the petitioner, namely Late Ajay
Kumar Singh met with a tragic accident near Rambharna Railway Track and died on the spot after
being hit by a moving train, resulting in multiple grievous injuries. The incident was duly reported
to the local police and the concerned railway authorities.

4. It is a matter of fact that the State Government has brought a welfare scheme known as
'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana' to provide financial assistance to the families of
farmers who die in accidents. In this regard, the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, issued a Government Order dated 28.02.2020 laying down the guidelines for extending
benefits under the said scheme. Accordingly, after the death of his father, the petitioner submitted a
claim under the aforesaid scheme after completing all required formalities.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner submitted an application
before the Tehsil Office, Bidhuna under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna,
2020, enclosing all necessary documents stating that his father Ajay Kumar Singh died accidentally
after being hit by a train near Rambharna Railway Track. It is stated that the Death Certificate of
the deceased Ajay Kumar Singh, issued by the competent authority on 23.03.2022, confirms that
the death occurred due to accidental injuries.

6. It was further submitted that the Family Register (Parivar Register) issued by the competent
revenue authority on 26.03.2022 recorded the names of the deceased Ajay Kumar Singh and his
legal heirs, including the petitioner Pramod Kumar Singh, thereby establishing the petitioner's
status as the lawful heir entitled to claim benefits under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna
Kalyan Yojna, 2020. As per the Station Master's memo and subsequent investigation conducted by
the concerned police authorities, it has been clearly recorded that the deceased Ajay Kumar Singh
died due to grievous injuries sustained in a train accident and pursuant thereto, a Panchnama was
prepared and Post-Mortem Examination conducted on 22.02.2022, which establishes that the cause
of death was accidental in nature resulting from multiple injuries for being hit by a moving train.
There is no finding of suicide or any other foul play by a third party, thereby substantiating that the
death squarely falls within the ambit of an "accidental death" as defined under Clause 2 of the
Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna, 2020.
1622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Khasra-Khatauni of the agricultural
holding standing in the name of the deceased Ajay Kumar Singh clearly demonstrated that he was a
recorded tenure holder and an active cultivator of agricultural land. The said revenue record
established beyond doubt that the deceased was a "Krishak" (farmer) within the meaning of the
Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna, 2020 and, therefore, fully eligible to claim the
benefits under the said welfare scheme.

8. It was further contended that the Lekhpal's Report dated 05.04.2022, prepared after local
inquiry, further corroborated accidental death of the deceased, Ajay Kumar Singh, which occurred
due to he being hit by a train. The report of the Lekhpal recorded that it could not be ascertained as
to whether the incident was a case of accident, suicide, or homicide. Such a speculative remark,
without any cogent evidence or investigation, was wholly arbitrary and of casual nature. It is
pertinent to mention that no criminal case, FIR, or police report has ever suggested suicide or foul
play.

9. Larned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(SDM), Bidhuna vide letter dated 02.05.2022, recommended that petitioner be treated as ineligible
without any concrete basis or cogent evidence. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed
impugned order dated 24.06.2022, whereby the petitioner's claim under the Mukhya Mantri
Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna, 2020 was rejected, declaring him "ineligible" on the ground that
the deceased was not travelling by train at the time of the incident and that it could not be
confirmed whether the death was accidental or suicidal. The SDM's conclusion, based on
conjecture and without any evidence, amounted to an arbitrary and mechanical denial of welfare
benefits envisaged by the scheme and hence, the impugned order deserved to be quashed.

10. Learned counsel representing state authorities attempted to defend the impugned order and
submitted that the case of suicide was outside the scope of the benefits provided under the scheme
but he could not demonstrate any document or evidence which led to the conclusion that the death
was suicide and not the accidental death.

11. As appeared from the records that the death of the deceased Ajay Kumar Singh was not
under dispute and it was also not disputed that he was depending upon farming for his livelihood
and that he was sole bread earner of his family. The death certificate annexed with the petition
demonstrated the accidental injuries that could have been considered as conclusive evidence of the
accidental death.

12. After perusal of records, it also appears that the order dated 24.06.2022 was passed along
with several pending applications and disposed of in a cursory manner through a tabular chart,
where the outcome of each application was written in a line or two. In the present case, it was
written that relying on the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidhuna, District Auraiya, it
was decided that the deceased was not travelling by train and that there was no evidence to
ascertain whether the death was accidental or suicidal. The report further noted that agricultural
land stood in the name of the deceased's father in Village Kaithna and that no information was
received from anyone in the village regarding the suicide of the deceased, and thereafter it was
2 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1623
written that the death was not to be treated as accidental, and consequently, the dependents were
ineligible for benefits under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Additional Chief Secretary
U.P. Government has issued Government Order dated 28.02.2020 for determination of the
guidelines for providing benefits under the scheme of "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan
Yojana" and present case is fully covered under Clause 2 of the Government Order dated
28.02.2020. Relevant part of the guideline is reproduced below for ready reference:

"Subject: Guidelines for the implementation of the "Chief Minister's Farmer Accident
Welfare Scheme" in case of accidental death/disability of farmers in Uttar Pradesh.

The State Government has decided to implement the "Chief Minister's Farmer Accident
Welfare Scheme" with the objective of providing social security to the families of farmers in case of
accidental death or disability. The following guidelines are being issued for this purpose:

1. This scheme will be effective from September 14, 2019.

2. Eligibility (Definition of Farmer):

This scheme is for farmers residing in Uttar Pradesh who suffer accidental death or
disability. A farmer is defined as follows:

(1) Account holder/co-account holder recorded in the revenue records, i.e., the land
register (Khatauni).

OR

(2) Earning members of the account holder/co-account holder's family whose primary
source of livelihood is agricultural income from the land registered in the name of the account
holder/co-account holder.

OR

(3) Landless individuals who cultivate land obtained on lease or on a sharecropping
basis, and whose main source of livelihood is agriculture on such leased or sharecropped land.
Lessees include tenant farmers, government lessees, and private lessees.

4. Age:

 The farmer's age should be between 18 and 70 years on the date of death/disability.

5. Coverage of the Scheme:
1624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) If a farmer suffers accidental death/disability due to fire, flood, lightning, electric
shock, snakebite, attack/injury by animals/creatures, drowning in the sea, river, lake, pond, or well,
storm, falling from or being crushed by a tree, house collapse, accident involving
train/road/aircraft/other vehicles, landslide, earthquake, gas leak, explosion, falling into a sewer
chamber, or any other cause, then financial assistance will be provided to the farmer/legal heir(s)
under this scheme."

14. After reading relevant provisions in the policy and the clause explaining coverage of the
scheme, it is clear that in case of death or disability also, the benefits would not be given if the
same has not occurred due to suicide or it is not the outcome of any crime. In the facts of the case,
there is absolutely no evidence to show that the death of the deceased falls under any of these
exceptions and it is just a statement made by authorities which also states that they could not find
any evidence to prove that the death was a suicide, which cannot be the justified reason to deny
benefits of the scheme to the petitioner.

15. It appears that the impugned order dated 24.06.2022 relies on the report of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Bidhuna, District Auraiya, which states that no information could be
obtained from the villagers or elsewhere to determine whether the death was a suicide. The purpose
of the welfare scheme is to advance the object of the policy. Where the report does not conclusively
establish the probability of suicide, denial of the benefit amounts to an arbitrary exercise of
discretion, based on a purely mechanical presumption against the petitioner, in deciding entitlement
under a state welfare scheme.

16. This Court in case of Gayatri Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine All
8086, has considered similar issue and held as under:-

"17. From a perusal of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020, it is evident that the
object of the 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana' is to provide financial assistance
to the dependents of farmers who die in accidents. The scheme does not make it mandatory that the
agricultural land must be recorded in the name of the deceased farmer alone. What is required to
be examined is whether the deceased was primarily engaged in agricultural work and whether
agriculture was the main source of livelihood for him and his family. In rural set-ups, it is a
common practice that land continues to remain recorded in the name of the elder family member,
while other members of the family carry on agricultural activities jointly."

17. In Smt. Gayatri Devi (supra) has also relied upon judgement of the Supreme Court in
Union of India Vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, and thereafter held that:

"21. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that beneficial and
welfare schemes must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation so as to advance their object
and not defeat it on technical grounds, the petitioner's claim could not have been rejected in casual
manner because from a bare perusal of the guidelines, it is evident that the scheme is intended to
protect persons and families who are engaged in farming activities and have agriculture as their
main source of livelihood. In the facts of the present case, the land stands recorded in the name of
the deceased's grandfather in the Khatauni, and there is no material on record to show that the
deceased, his father, or his wife had any other source of income. The family was dependent upon
2 All. Surendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1625
farming for its survival, particularly in view of the submission made by the petitioner in the
rejoinder that the same land was mortgaged with the Bank of India by the deceased at the time of
purchasing a tractor in the year 2011. This fact ought to have been properly examined by the
authorities instead of rejecting the petitioner's claim in a casual manner. 22. In view of the above
discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the petitioner's claim is based
on an unduly drawn narrow interpretation of the scheme and merely based on assumptions not
supported by proper enquiry, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2, District
Magistrate, Kannauj, rejecting the petitioner's claim under the 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna
Kalyan Yojana' and the information order dated 31.07.2021 issued by respondent no. 3 are hereby
quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Kannauj, to reconsider the petitioner's
claim afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conducting a proper enquiry, if
required. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight
weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs."

18. In view of the above legal proposition which is fully applicable to the facts of this case, in
our considered view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Thus the writ petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 24.06.2022 passed by respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Auraiya, is
accordingly quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner's application regarding deceased Ajay
Kumar Singh. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Auraiya, for fresh consideration of
the petitioner's claim in accordance with law. The petitioner may file a fresh representation within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which shall be decided by the
competent authority by a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1625
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 43641 of 2007

Surendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The main issue before the court was whether recovery proceedings under general recovery statutes are
maintainable for large dues in presence of special recovery laws governing financial institutions.

Headnotes