HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11384 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Challenge has been raised to the decision made by the empowered committee that has rejected the claim made by the petitioner under the 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana' (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme"). 3. Undisputedly the petitioner's son late Shivam Kumar died due to road accident on May 27, 2023. Relying on the Scheme enforced in the State under Government Order dated 02.03.2020, petitioner applied for the payment of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. Presently, the claim has been rejected on the solitary reason that the deceased did not own any agricultural land. No other reason has been assigned. At the same time, it has been recorded that neither the petitioner had any agricultural land nor was a farmer. 5. Clause 2 of the Scheme is extracted as under: "2- पाśता (कृ षक की पिरभाषा)- यह योजना उǥर Šदेष के िनवासी ऐसे कृ षकȋ के िलए है, जो ɭघăटनावष मृत / िदDzांग हो जाते है। कृ षक का ताĕपयă िनĞनिलिखत है:- (1) राजĥव अिभलेखȋ अथाăत खतौनी मȅ दजă खातेदार / सहखातेदार। Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vivek Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Saroj Kumari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) अथवा (2) खातेदार / सहखातेदार के पिरवार के ऐसे कमाऊ सदĥय (Bread winner) िजनकी आजीिवका का मुćय ūोत खातेदार / सहखातेदार के नाम दजă भूिम से होने वाली कृ िष आय है। अथवा (3) ऐसे भूिमहीन Dzिǘ जो पटटे से ŠाĚत भूिम पर अथवा बटाई पर कृ िष कायă करते हȈ तथा िजनकी जीिवका का मृćय साधन ऐसे पǛे अथवा बटाई पर ली गयी भूिम पर कृ िष कायă है। पǛेदार के अęतगăत असामी पǛेदार, सरकारी पǛेदार तथा िनजी पǛेदार सिĞमिलत हȋगे।" 6. Undeniably the eligibility to claim compensation under the Scheme may arise upon the occurrence of death of a farmer who may have held agricultural land either under single or joint ownership or on occurrence of death of any family member of such farmer who may have been drawing such earning by working on such farm land or such eligibility may arise upon death of a landless labourer as well. 7. Since it is not a pre-condition under the Scheme that the deceased himself must own agricultural land or that his name must be found recorded with respect to any agricultural land, the claim made by the petitioner could not be rejected on the reason of absence of agricultural land recorded in favour of the deceased. 8. In the present facts, it is not in dispute that the deceased was going for agricultural work at the fields and while crossing the road, he died due to road accident. 9. In view of the above finding recorded by the Committee, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending by calling counter-affidavit at this stage. 10. Clearly the decision making process has suffered a fatal flaw. Once it was found that the deceased was going to do agricultural work and while crossing the road, he met with an accident, there existed no reason to reject the claim made by the petitioner. 11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed at this stage itself. 12. The order dated February 13, 2024 passed by respondent no.2 is set-aside. 13. Matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order providing for release of due money within a period of one month from WRIC No. 11384 of 2025 2 today. November 28, 2025 cks/- WRIC No. 11384 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench