# Smt. Rachana Soni v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-31
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 953 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rachana-soni-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52885
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Zafar Aziz

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Contract
Act,1872Mukhyamantri
Kishan
Evam
Sarvhit
Beema
Yojna-Delay
in
claim-The
petitioner's claim under Mukhyamantri
Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojna was
rejected by the District Level Committee
on the ground of delay, as it was filed
beyond the prescribed period of two
months from the date of death-The
petitioner relied on The Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs Sanjesh & Anr where the
Supreme Court held that such time
restrictions in insurance schemes are void
under section 28 of the Act,1872-Held, the
District Level Committee's rejection on
grounds of delay is unsustainable as the
condition of lodging claim within a period
of one month, extendable by another one
month is contrary to section 28 of the ActThe claim must be reconsidered on merits
within three months.(Para 1 to 9)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Smt. Rachana Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
505
9/299 र्ेदपुर। 30/6/05
जमौर
Vs.
सरकार

14. It is material to mention that plot
N.454/525, 455 are situated adjacent to
N.H. 24 and objection was filed on behalf
of respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) along with
prayer for condonation of delay before
denotification of the village as such there is
no illegality in the order passed by the
Consolidation authorities for declaring the
plot No.454/525 area 0.049 hectare as well
as plot No.455 area 0.543 hectare as C.H.
18. The entry in Misil Band also
demonstrate that objection was filed by
Lata Devi before denotification of the
village.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation while deciding the every
revisions has rightly considered the claim
of the parties and dismissed the revisions
filed by respective parties except revision
NO.48 filed by Lata Devi.

15. This Court in the case reported in
1985 RD 71 Paras Nath Singh versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others has held that an order which is
illegal cannot be quashed or set aside in
Writ jurisdiction if quashing of it results in
bringing on record another illegal order.
Paragraph No.21 of the judgment rendered
in Paras Nath Singh (Supra) will be
relevant for perusal which is as under:-

"21. It is, no doubt, correct to
say that any order passed without
jurisdiction is a nullity and deserves to be
quashed. But if as a result of quashing
that order another wrong and illegal order
would be restored, this Court would refuse
to interfere with the impugned order
which appears to be quite proper equitable
and just order. As mentioned above, the
power
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution is devised to advance justice
and not to thwart it. To me it appears to be
well settled that an order which is illegal
cannot be quashed or set aside in writ
jurisdiction if quashing of it results in
bringing on record another illegal order."

16. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no scope
of interference by this Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
constitution of India against the impugned
orders passed by Consolidation authorities.

17. The Writ Petition No.47925 of
2014 filed by Rajeshwari Devi is dismissed
and the Writ Petition No.8596 of 2015 filed
by Smt.Lata Devi is disposed of in view of
the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation in
reference proceeding under Section 48 (3)
of U.P.C.H. Act.

18. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 953 of 2025

Smt. Rachana Soni ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rinku Verma, Ajeet Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Zafar Aziz

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Contract
Act,1872Mukhyamantri
Kishan
Evam
Sarvhit
Beema
Yojna-Delay
in
claim-The
petitioner's claim under Mukhyamantri
Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojna was
rejected by the District Level Committee
on the ground of delay, as it was filed
beyond the prescribed period of two
months from the date of death-The
petitioner relied on The Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs Sanjesh & Anr where the
Supreme Court held that such time
restrictions in insurance schemes are void
under section 28 of the Act,1872-Held, the
District Level Committee's rejection on
grounds of delay is unsustainable as the
condition of lodging claim within a period
of one month, extendable by another one
month is contrary to section 28 of the ActThe claim must be reconsidered on merits
within three months.(Para 1 to 9)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Sanjesh & anr. ,
SLP © No. 3978 of 2022

2. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. , Muzaffar Nagar Vs
Smt. Sanjesh & anr. , Writ C No. 19071 of 2020

3. The National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Gauam Yadav &
ors. , SLP © No. 7647 of 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard.

2. The claim of petitioner under the
Mukhyamantri
Kishan
Evam
Sarvhit
Beema Yojna has been declined by the
District Level Committee on the ground of
delay. As per the Committee the claim
should have been raised within a period of
one month from the date of death which
could be further extended for another one
month,
meaning
thereby,
within
a
maximum period of two months, instead
the claim was raised on 16.11.2018 though
the death took place on 14.05.2018, thus, it
was raised beyond the aforesaid period of
two months.

3. However, learned counsel for the
petitioner relies upon a judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered on
11.03.2022 in SLP (C) No. 3978 of 2022
(The Oriental Insurance company Limited
vs. Sanjesh & Anr.) to contend that such a
condition in the scheme is hit by Section 28
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as has
been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the said case. The said judgement has been
rendered in respect of the same scheme
albeit
involving
another
Insurance
Company i.e. The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, as, it is the law of land,
therefore, in view of this judgment, the
decision of the District Level Committee
cannot be sustained.

4. On being confronted, counsel for
the
New
India
Insurance
Company
Limited, Mr. Zafar Aziz could not dispute
the fact that now there is a judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court as quoted
hereinabove
which
covers
the
issue
involved herein nor could the learned
standing counsel.

5. We have perused the judgment of
this Court at Allahabad dated 22.09.2021
rendered in Writ C No. 19071 of 2020 (The
Oriential Insurance Company Limited,
Muzaffarnagar vs. Smt. Sanjesh & Anr.)
by which the writ petition of the Insurance
Company challenging the order of the
Permanent Lok Adalat on the ground of the
claim being delayed was dismissed, against
1 All. Anil Pathak & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
507
which the Oriental Insurance Company
Limited filed the aforesaid SLP which has
also been dismissed. The said judgment of
Hon'ble
the
Supreme
Court
dated
11.03.2022 (supra) reads as under:

"The sole arguments raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
claim was not filed within a period of one
month or extending condonable period of one
month.

We do not find any merit in the
said arguments in view of Section 28 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short, 'the
Act') which reads as under:-

"28. Agreements in restraint of
legal proceedings, void.? [Every agreement,?

(a) by which any party thereto is
restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights
under or in respect of any contract, by the
usual legal 2 proceedings in the ordinary
tribunals, or which limits the time within
which he may thus enforce his rights; or

(b) which extinguishes the rights of
any party thereto, or discharges any party
thereto, from any liability, under or in respect
of any contract on the expiry of a specified
period so as to restrict any party from
enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.]"

In view of the aforesaid Section,
the condition of lodging claim within a period
of one month, extendable by another one
month is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and
thus void.

In view of the said fact, we do not
find any ground to interfere with the order
passed by the High Court.

The special leave petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of."

6. Although the judgment has been
rendered at the SLP stage, but, it is a reasoned
judgment, therefore, it contains a binding
ratio.

7. In view of the above quoted
judgment, the reason given for rejecting the
claim of the petitioner i.e. delay, is not
acceptable. The impugned decision is
accordingly quashed. The District Level
Committee is directed to reconsider the claim
of the petitioner keeping in mind the
judgment quoted hereinabove, on merits. The
decision shall be taken with expedition, say,
within a period of three months of receipt of
certified copy of this order.

8. The writ petition is allowed.

9. Similar petitions have been kept
pending by this Court in view of pendency of
similar matters before Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India in Special Leave Petition (C)
No.7647 of 2021, The National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Gauam Yadav and
others, however, now there is a judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court on record,
therefore, the Registry is directed to list all
such similar matters which are pending at the
earliest. Counsel for the petitioner in such
petitions are at liberty to move application for
listing of their cases.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 507
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 2228 of 2025

Anil Pathak & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents