# Sobratan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 797
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4938 of 2026
- **Bench:** Atul Sreedharan, Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sobratan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54309
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

3 All. Sobratan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
primarily, it is a summary proceeding; and secondly it is to be initiated at the behest of the
Gram Panchayat. As such, we find that the nature of the said proceedings are materially different
and for the said reasons also, it is not a remedy available for allottees under Section 65 of the Code,
2006.

Directions

35. In view of the foregoing discussions, the present Writ Petition stands allowed with the
following directions:-

 (i) The Respondent no. 3 i.e., S.D.M, Tehsil- Khaga, Disrtrict- Fatehpur is directed to
take cognizance of the application of the petitioner, in exercise of its power under Section 65 of the
Code, 2006 and proceed as per law.

 (ii) It is also provided that the Respondent no. 3 shall provide due opportunity of hearing
to Respondent no. 5 and 6 and shall proceed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of certified copy of this
order.

36. It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and
the proceedings under section 65 of the Code, 2006 shall proceed as per law adhering to the
Principles of Natural Justice.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 797
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 4938 of 2026

Sobratan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Matter pertains to the legality of rejection of petitioner's claim for compensation under the Chief
Minister Farmers Accident Insurance Scheme on the ground that post-mortem report did not
disclose definite cause of death due to snakebite.
HEADNOTE
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Chief Minister Farmers Accident Insurance Scheme - Claim for
compensation on account of snakebite death - Petitioner's husband allegedly died on account of
snakebite - Claim rejected by District Magistrate on ground that post-mortem report did not
disclose definite cause of death due to snakebite although viscera had been preserved for
analysis - Petitioner contended that post-mortem report clearly disclosed snakebite injury and
Government Order dated 08.07.2021 provided that in cases relating to snakebite deaths it was
not necessary to insist upon viscera report - Challenge in writ jurisdiction - Justification:
Held: In cases of snakebite death, classic hallmark of two puncture wounds inflicted by the fangs is usually
visible and site of bite would have signs of swelling, necrotic tissues and blackening depending upon nature of
venom - Argument advanced by petitioner that abrasion injuries found on body of deceased, in absence of
other signs like swelling and/or formation of necrotic tissues, were caused by snakebite, rejected - Postmortem report did not indicate that victim died because of snakebite - District Magistrate justified in rejecting
claim for compensation. Court, however, observed that doctor conducting post-mortem examination may have
erred in not recording puncture injuries on body of deceased - If at later date viscera report confirms
presence of snake venom, petitioner shall be eligible to claim compensation again subject to limitation period
commencing from the date the viscera report is made available to petitioner - Petition disposed of with liberty
granted to petitioner to apply afresh if viscera report reveals presence of snake venom.[Paras 6, 7, 10, 11, 12,
14] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Nil

List of Acts
Constitution of India
List of Keywords
Chief Minister Farmers Accident Insurance Scheme; Compensation claim; Government Order dated
08.07.2021; Snakebite death; Venomous snake; Snake venom; Viscera report; Necrotic tissues; Swelling; Postmortem report; Abrasion injury; Puncture wounds.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur rejecting petitioner's claim for
compensation under the Chief Minister Farmers Accident Insurance Scheme.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. For the Petitioner: Mohd. Shahanshah Khan
Advs. For the Respondents: C.S.C.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Atul Sreedharan, J.
&
Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.)

Ref:- Civil Misc. Exemption Application No. Nil of 2026
3 All. Sobratan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799

 1. For the reasons mentioned in the exemption application, the exemption application is
allowed.

2. The petitioner is exempted from submitting a digital signature.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sobratan, who is the wife of the
deceased, Jalaluddin. It is stated that the deceased died on 11.10.2021 on account of a snake bite.

3. Petitioner is the wife of the deceased. As the application for compensation under the
Chief Minister Farmers Accident Insurance Scheme was not being decided within a reasonable
time, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 35446 of 2025 (Sobratan Vs. The
State of U.P. And 7 Other) which was disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate,
Mirzapur to decide the pending claim of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks in the light of the
Government Order dated 08.07.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner's application was decided and
rejected by the impugned order dated 12.12.2025.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order is bad in law and on facts, it merely
reproduces the observations contained in the Panchnama, wherein the panch witnesses have stated
that the deceased died on account of being bitten by a venomous creature. It does not specifically
mention a snake bite. The District Magistrate, Mirzapur, in the impugned order, has considered the
post-mortem report and has come to the conclusion that no definite cause of death has been
ascribed in the post-mortem report, although the viscera had been preserved for analysis, it cannot
be stated that the deceased died as a result of a snakebite.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with great vehemence that the impugned
order is erroneous, as the post-mortem report clearly discloses a snakebite injury. In this regard,
learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the post-mortem report at
page no. 41 of the petition, wherein the external injuries recorded by the doctor who conducted the
post-mortem examination are mentioned. The first injury is described as an abrasion measuring
0.5X0.25 cm on the side of the left ring finger. The second injury is also an abrasion measuring
0.25X2.0 cm on the palmar aspect of the left ring finger. The viscera were preserved for chemical
analysis, which included parts of the stomach and its contents, portions of the liver, spleen, and
kidneys, and one loop of the small intestine. The preserved viscera were sealed and handed over to
the constable concerned for being sent to the laboratory.

6. To further support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to the Government Order placed at page no. 49 of the petition. In the said
order, the State Government has taken into consideration the delay in deciding applications relating
to snakebite deaths on account of awaiting the viscera report. The State Government has directed
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that in such cases it is not necessary to insist upon a viscera report and that such claims relating to
snakebite deaths may be decided even in the absence of the same.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the said Government
Order dated 08.07.2021 would apply only in cases where there is no doubt that the death occurred
due to a snakebite. He further refers to the post-mortem report to justify the impugned order,
contending that the report does not indicate that the victim died because of a snakebite. He also
submits that the conclusion recorded by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination
that the cause of death is to be correlated with the viscera report along with the presence of external
injuries, does not demonstrate that the victim could have died due to a snakebite.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the
petition.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the two abrasions found
on the body of the deceased are due to the snakebite.

10. This Court disagrees with the said submission. An abrasion is an injury to the human
body that may occur because of friction between the skin and a hard or rough surface. It involves
the removal of the epidermis layer of the skin and, depending upon the degree of frictional force
applied, the injury may be either superficial, deep or an avulsion (seen prominently in motor
vehicle accident injuries). In the case of a bite from a venomous snake, the injury would ordinarily
consist of puncture wounds caused by the fangs of the snake. Thereafter, depending upon nature of
the venom, haematological reactions take place in the human body which affects blood coagulation
and impairs oxygen absorption in the blood revealing symptoms of asphyxia (in case of Krait and
Cobra venom leading to the collapse of the respiratory system), reflected in the bluish discoloration
of the lips and fingernails. It is not necessary that such symptoms be always seen. A snakebite
affecting the neurological system may cause death much faster, and in those cases, the symptoms
may not follow the usual pattern. However, in cases of snakebite death, the classic hallmark of two
puncture wounds inflicted by the fangs is usually visible and the site of the bite would have signs of
swelling, necrotic tissues and blackening (depending upon the nature of venom).

11. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
abrasion injuries found on the body of the deceased, in the absence of other signs like swelling
and/or formation of necrotic tissues, was caused by a snakebite, is rejected.

12. This Court, however, is cognizant of the fact that the doctor conducting the postmortem examination may have erred in not recording the puncture injuries on the body of the
deceased. However, if at a later date the viscera report confirms the presence of snake venom (the
chances of which are also less as snake venom would decompose and become untraceable with the
passage of time in the viscera) the petitioner shall be eligible to claim compensation again, subject
to the limitation period commencing from the date the viscera report is made available to the
petitioner. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to apply
afresh, if the viscera report reveals the presence of snake venom.
3 All. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
801
13. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

14. As regards the Government Order, the same would be applicable in cases where the
post-mortem report clearly states that the death occurred on account of a snakebite. In such
circumstances, the application for compensation ought to be decided without awaiting the viscera
report, as the Government Order itself provides that the viscera report is not essential.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 801
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 5496 of 2026

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Matter pertains to whether Save Financial Services Private Limited qualifies as a "Financial Institution" within
the meaning of Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and is competent to initiate proceedings
thereunder; and whether writ petition challenging recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is
maintainable in view of availability of efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act.

HEADNOTE
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 - ss.2(1)(m)(iv), 13(2), 13(4), 17, 18, 26-D - Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - s.45-I(f) -
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Loan facilities availed from respondent-financial company -
Petitioner committed default and account classified as NPA - Demand notice issued under
Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act followed by possession notice under Section 13(4) - Petitioners
challenged recovery proceedings on ground that respondent-company was not a "Financial
Institution" within meaning of Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act - Plea also raised
regarding non-registration with CERSAI, insufficient stamping of loan documents and allegations
of fraud - Respondents raised objection regarding maintainability of writ petition on ground of
alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act - Justification:
Held: Notification dated 24.02.2020 issued by Central Government in supersession of notification dated
05.08.2016 specifies all such non-banking financial companies as defined in clause (f) of Section 45-I of the
RBI Act, 1934 having assets worth rupees one hundred crore and above as "financial institutions"
for the purposes of the SARFAESI Act - Notification dated 12.02.2021 merely amended notification dated
24.02.2020 to extent of reduction of amount for which action could be initiated under SARFAESI Act - After
statutory provisions and notifications under SARFAESI Act, there remains no iota of doubt that Save Financial
Services Private Limited is a financial institution and therefore competent to invoke provisions of SARFAESI Act
- Arguments advanced by the petitioners on issue of jurisdiction held to have no legal basis and rejected.

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides comprehensive and efficacious remedy to any person aggrieved by
measures taken under Section 13(4) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - SARFAESI Act is a comprehensive