HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10617 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has sought for the following substantial reliefs:- "(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated-22-05-2025 passed by respondent No.3 i.e. District Magistrate, District-Raebareli (Annexure No.-1 to the instant petition), whereby the respondent no.-3 rejected the claim of the petitioner under "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna" on the ground that the deceased, 'Late Rampal, was neither an land account holder nor he engaged in any agricultural work and he was labour. Whereas the petitioner's husband late Rampal was the earning member of his family who used to support himself and his family by working as a labourer and by farming on the agricultural land registered in the name of his aged father, for which the father of the deceased i.e. Ramdhani alias Dhaniram has also given an affidavit. Thus, the deceased was fully covered under the present scheme, in the interest of justice. (II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the opposite parties to pay compensation/financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000.00/- to the petitioner under the "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rinku Verma, Ajeet Kumar, Anjali Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Usha .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Yojna" on account of death of i.e. Late Rampal, along with interest @ 14% from the date of death of deceased i.e. 05-09-2023 till actual payment." 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner under the "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna" has been rejected on the ground that the deceased, Rampal, was neither a land account holder nor engaged in any agricultural work, and that he was a labour. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without providing any reasons whatsoever. 4. In light of the above, it is clear that the rejection order is without any basis in law. 5. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated May 22, 2025 is quashed and set aside insofar as it relates to the petitioner, with a direction upon the authority concerned to reconsider the claim of the petitioner after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, keeping in view the clause 2.2(2) of the said Scheme. 6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. November 14, 2025 cks/- WRIC No. 10617 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench