# Smt. Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 994
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-18
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 29414 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-gayatri-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52952
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
annual lease rent and with-holding of
refund of Rs.7.38 crores towards CIC charges
is set aside. The respondent development
authority is directed to provide fresh
calculation of lease rent from the date the
possession certificate of divided plot No. 2A
is issued to the petitioner in terms of
condition No.3 of order dated 16.2.2010 Any
excess amount deposited by the petitioner,
after adjustment of amount payable by the
petitioner, as calculated as per observation
made herein above be refunded to the
petitioner, forthwith and in case any amount
is found payable. the same shall be paid by
the petitioner within a period of two months
from the date of communication and in case
the said amount is not paid by the petitioner
within two months, the authority will be free
to pass orders in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 994
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ - C No. 29414 of 2021

Smt. Gayatri Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to petitioner whose
husband died in road accident. her claim for
compensation was initially rejected because a
local report alleged her husband ran a general
store/bangle shop, despite her assertion that he
was
the
primary
breadwinner
through
agricultural work on his grandfather's land. The
key issue involved in this case is whether the
District Magistrate rejection of the petitioner's
claim
under
the
"Mukhyamantari
Krishak
Durghatna Kalyan Yojna" was lawful and
consistent with the Government Order dated
february 28, 2020.

Headnotes
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226Under
the
"Mukhyamantari
Krishak
Durghatna
Kalyan
Yojna"
it
is
not
mandatory for agricultural land to be
recorded
in
the
deceased's
nameEligibility extends to family members
whose primary livelihood is derived from
the
account
holders registered
landRejection of a welfare claim based on an
undisclosed report (such as Lekhpal's
report) without providing the claimant an
opportunity for explanation or a hearing is
a violation of natural justice-writ petition
allowed.(Para 15 to 22) (E-6)

Held
The court found the rejection was based on a
"narrow interpretation" and "assumptions not
supported by proper enquiry". The matter was
remanded to the District Magistrate to consider
the claim afresh within eight weeks.

Case law Cited
Union of India Vs PrabhaKaran ViJaya Kumar,
(2008) 9 SCC 527-referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, Government Order
dated 28.02.2020

List of Keywords
Mukhyamantari
Krishak
Durghatna
Kalyan
Yojna, Beneficial legislation, Principles of Natural
justice, Livelihood, Land Title, breadwinner, Reenquiry discretion.

Case Arising From
Civil Jurisdiction-WRIT-C No. - 29414 of 2023

Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for parties
Adv. for Petitioner:-
Vimal Kumar
Adv.for Respondent:-
C.S.C.
12 All. Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
995
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama
Charurvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shruti
Malviya, learned Brief Holder 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 25.08.2021 passed by the
respondent no. 3, Additional District
Magistrate, Kannauj, 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 take final decision on
application
of
the
petitioner
dated
07.09.2021 after calling report in reenquiry.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
the husband of the petitioner, namely
Late Vikas Gupta, died on 29.08.2020 in
a road accident. In relation thereto, an
F.I.R. was lodged on 30.08.2020 after the
post-mortem of the deceased. Late Vikas
Gupta was a poor farmer, and at the time
of his death, he left behind his aged
father, the petitioner (his widow), and
three minor children. It is stated that the
grandfather and father of the deceased are
still alive and the agricultural land
continues to be recorded in the name of
the grandfather of the deceased. During
his lifetime, Late Vikas Gupta was
engaged in agricultural work in his
village and agriculture was the sole
source of livelihood for him and his
family.

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 her husband, the petitioner
submitted a claim under the aforesaid
scheme after completing all required
formalities.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner contends that upon submission of
the claim, the concerned authorities called
for
reports
from
the
Lekhpal,
who
submitted
baseless
report
without
conducting proper enquiry. Thereafter, in
an executive meeting chaired by the
District Magistrate, Kannauj, a decision
was taken to reject the petitioner?s claim on
the ground that the deceased was earning
his livelihood from a general store/ bangle
shop and not from agriculture, so the claim
of the petitioner was rejected by the order
dated 25.08.2021.

6. Aggrieved by the rejection order,
the petitioner submitted representation
dated 07.09.2021 before the District
Magistrate, Kannauj, stating that it was her
brother-in-law, who was working merely as
a helper in the general store on a monthly
payment of Rs. 2,000/-, whereas her
husband was a farmer and was engaged
solely
in
agricultural
work.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that after
getting
no
response,
the
petitioner
approached this Court by filing the writ
petition.
996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Learned counsel further submits
that during his lifetime, deceased was doing
agricultural work in his village and the
main source of his income and also the
family is through agricultural work only. It
is further submitted that the deceased was
very young and the bread earner for his
family and due to his sudden death, entire
family is suffering from the financial
hardship.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
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:

 (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
12 All. Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
997
provided to the farmer/legal heir(s) under
this scheme."

9.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that on the claim of
petitioner the authorities concerned invited
reports from the Lekhpal who in his turn
without making proper enquiry submitted
the false report and on the basis of same
report, Executive Meeting headed by the
District Magistrate, Kannauj, the decision
was taken on 31.07.2021, for rejecting the
claim of the petitioner while observing that
the source of income of the deceased was
from the shop of the general store/ bangle
shop and not from the agriculture, hence
she is not entitle under the scheme.

10.
Learned
counsel
further
submits that from bare perusal of the
information order dated 25.08.2021 and the
decision taken on 31.07.2021, it is crystal
clear that before taking impugned decision
no information, explanation or opportunity
of hearing has been provided to the
petitioner by the committee and also the
report of Lekhpal which was relied by the
committee in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner, was also not provided to the
petitioner, which itself makes the impugned
order bad in law due to the violation of
principles of natural justice.

11. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondent submits
that the matter was placed before the
District
Level
Committee
and
the
committee has enquired the matter and
found that main source of income of
deceased was not agriculture but his source
of income was money earned from running
the general store /bangle shop, whereas
petitioner has claimed in writ petition that
her husband earned livelihood by carrying
agricultural work on the ancestral land of
his father, which has been found to be
incorrect under the eligibility criteria as
specified in sub para 2 of para 2 of M.S.-
11/Ek-9-2020-2F/2018 dated February 28,
2020, because the land is mortgaged.

12.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent submits that the petitioner?s
father-in-law, Sri Hari Om, is alive, but his
name is not recorded in the Khatauni.
Learned counsel further submits that the
name of the deceased?s grandfather, Sri
Ram Dayal, son of Raghuvar Dayal, is
recorded in respect of Gata No. 294,
situated at Village Sikandarpur, Pargana
Sakrava. As per the stand taken by the
respondents in the counter affidavit, the
deceased is not eligible for benefits under
the scheme, as his grandfather?s name
appears in the land records and not his own.
It is also contended that the land of
Raghuvar Dayal, son of Ram Dayal,
namely Gata No. 294, situated at Village
Sikandarpur,
Pargana
Sakrava,
was
mortgaged
on
28.04.2011
and
a
corresponding endorsement was made in
the Khatauni.

13. Learned brief holder appearing
for the State respondents submits that,
under Point No. 11(Ra) of the Government
Order dated 28.02.2020, the District
Magistrate is not bound to re-examine the
matter because it is specifically provided
therein that only if new facts are brought to
the notice of the District Magistrate by the
applicant or any other person with regard to
a decision taken at the district level, a fresh
enquiry may be conducted at the discretion
of the District Magistrate. After such
enquiry, the application is to be decided
again by a reasoned order, and in such a
situation, the decision of the District
Magistrate shall be final and binding. It is
further submitted by learned counsel that,
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the present case, no new fact has been
brought on record which would warrant
reconsideration or a fresh enquiry.

14. In rejoinder argument, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the husband of the petitioner during his
lifetime was doing agricultural work and
for his livelihood the original source of
income is agriculture only. After the death
of the main bread earner the petitioner had
applied for compensation under scheme of
"Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan
Yojna", upon which false report has been
submitted by the Tehsildar official with
effect that the main source of income of
deceased is earning from the general store
shop, not by agriculture upon relating on
the aforesaid false report the claim of the
petitioner has been rejected on 31.03.2021
without any show cause to the petitioner or
cross checking the facts mentioned in the
report,
from
another
Tehsil
official/
authority as provided in Government Order
dated 28.02.2020 in point 11(B) as such the
claim of petitioner has been rejected
illegality without following mandatory
procedure, as incorporated in point 11(B)
of Government order dated 28.02.2020.
The counsel for the petitioner contends that
the claim is illegally rejected after relying
on the false report, which has wrongly
placed petitioner?s brother-in-law with her
husband, hence her claim is liable to be
allowed after re-investigation and the
District Magistrate Kannauj is duty bound
to direct for re-investigation and decide
same application by passing speaking and
reasoned order.

15. We have considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
available on record. The principal issue that
arises for consideration before this Court is
whether the rejection of the petitioner?s
claim under the?Mukhyamantri Krishak
Durghatna Kalyan Yojana? by the District
Magistrate, Kannauj, is in accordance with
the Government Order dated 28.02.2020
and based on relevant and correct facts, and
further
whether
the
authorities
were
justified in denying the benefit solely on
the ground that the alleged report mentions
that deceased was working in a shop so not
to be considered farmer while the land
stood recorded in the name of the
deceased?s grandfather and the claim is
that he was working as farmer and the
alleged report wrongly records that he was
working in store.

16. Having considered complete
facts and circumstances, we find that it is
not in dispute that the deceased died in a
road accident on 29.08.2020 and that the
petitioner is his legally wedded wife. What
is under dispute is that the report which is
disputed by the petitioner, states that the
deceased was working in a store while the
deceased was residing in the village and
was engaged in agricultural activities along
with his family as per petitioner. The
submission made by the State in the
counter affidavit that the agricultural land
is recorded in the name of the deceased?s
grandfather and not in the name of the
deceased himself, and that the authorities
presumed that the deceased was earning his
livelihood from a general store, is not the
ground taken for the rejection of the claim,
so this was not the ground on which the
petitioner?s claim has been rejected in the
impugned order.

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
12 All. Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
999
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.

18. In the present case, the
petitioner has specifically stated that her
husband was engaged in agricultural work
and that her brother-in-law was working
merely as a helper in a general store on a
nominal monthly payment. This assertion
has not been convincingly rebutted by the
respondents by placing any cogent material
on record to show that the deceased himself
was running a shop or that his primary
source of income was non-agricultural.
From perusal of Khatauni, it is clear that
the land is recorded with name of the
grand-father of the deceased and the same
land is mortgaged in the Bank of India to
which the rejoinder affidavit states that it
was mortgaged for purchasing tractor in the
year 2011. The report submitted by the
Lekhpal, on which reliance has been
placed, does not disclose that any proper
enquiry was conducted or that statements
of villagers or family members were
recorded or the same was ever provided to
the petitioner.

19.
The
contention
of
the
respondents that the District Magistrate was
not required to reconsider the matter in the
absence of new facts also does not inspire
confidence.
The
petitioner,
by
her
representation
dated
07.09.2021,
had
brought to the notice of the authorities
relevant facts regarding the nature of work
of her brother-in-law and the agricultural
occupation of her deceased husband. Such
facts
were
material
for
determining
eligibility under the scheme and ought to
have been examined objectively. The
mechanical rejection of the claim, without
addressing these aspects, reflects nonapplication of mind.

20. While deciding the issue of
compensation, in Union of India Vs
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9
SCC 527, Supreme Court observed that:

 "11. .. Since the provision for
compensation in the Railways Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation, in our
opinion, it should receive a liberal and
wider interpretation and not a narrow and
technical one. Hence, in our opinion the
latter
of
the
abovementioned
two
interpretations i.e. the one which advances
the object of the statute and serves its
purpose should be preferred"

 12. .. In other words, beneficial
or welfare statutes should be given a
liberal
and
not
literal
or
strict
interpretation..."

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
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1000
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 35470 of 2025
Alongwith other cases

Meena Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to systematic inaction and
non-execution of final demarcation orders
passed under Section 24 of U.P. revenue
Code,2006.

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226U.P. Revenue Code,2006-Section 24 & U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016-Rule 22-The
SDO's power under section 24 is not
limited to mere application, it includes the
mandatory authority to restore possession
and
use
necessary
force
to
affix
boundaries-The mere filing of an appeal
does not operate as an automatic stay-In
the absence of an express interim order
from
the
Commissioner,
the
SDO's
demarcation order remains operative and
must
be
executed-If
resistance
is
apprehended, the SDO has a mandatory
duty to issue a written requisition to the
Station House Officer for Police force
under Rule 22(14)-Lack of police force is
not a valid pretext for deferring the
execution of a judicial order-Pendency of
map correction proceedings does not ipso
facto suspend the execution of section 24
order-Writ petition allowed.(Para 18 to
47) (E-6)

Held
The court held that section 24 of the U.P.
Revenue Code,2006 vests the SDO with
statutory quasi-judicial powers for summary