RAJRANI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. COMMISSIONER AND SECY. BOARD OF REVENUE LKO. U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIC/11072/2025 · 2025-11-18
Manjive Shukla, Shekhar B Saraf
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 178370 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 178370 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11072 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayer:- (i) Issue a writ, order or certiorari for quash the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by opposite party no.2 (District Level Committee) contain as Annexure no.1 with the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the compensation/claim of accidental death under the scheme of Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna to the petitioner..."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon a Panchnama that has been written by the Village Pradhan to buttress his case, that the death of the victim was due to falling from a roof top. Apart from this sole document, there is no other proof of the death of the victim by accident.
4. Neither was a postmortem carried out nor was a proper Panchnama made that could indicate that the death of the victim by way of falling from the roof top. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Janendra Kumar Verma, Vivek Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajrani .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner And Secy. Board Of Revenue Lko. U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. The impugned order also specifies that neither there is a postmortem nor a proper Panchnama and accordingly, the claim cannot be allowed. We are unable to fathom as to how the claim of the petitioner can be justified without the petitioner providing proper documents that are required under Clause 9 (4) of the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna.
6. In light of the same, we are unable to entertain this writ petition..
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 18, 2025 Satish WRIC No. 11072 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench