HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10081 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakhar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 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 husband late Sonu Kumar died due to road accident on 27.08.2024. 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 was not working in 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-पा्ऴता (कृ षक की पिरभाषा)- यह योजना उ्तर ्ऺदेश के िनवासी ऐसे कृ षकों के िलए है, जो दुघर्टनावश मृत / िद्िांग हो जाते हैं। कृ षक का तात्पयर् िनम्निलिखत से हैः- (1) Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vivek Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Madhu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) राजस्व अिभलेखों अथार्त् खतौनी में दजर् खातेदार/सहखातेदार। अथवा (2) खातेदार/ सहखातेदार के पिरवार के ऐसे कमाऊ सदस्य (Bread winner) िजनकी आजीिवका का मुख्य ्सोत खातेदार/सहखातेदार के नाम दजर् भूिम से होने वाली कृ िष आय है। अथवा (3) ऐसे भूिमहीन ्िि्व जो प्टे से ्ऺाप्त भूिम पर अथवा बटाई पर कृ िष कायर् करते हैं तथा िजनकी जीिवका का मुख्य साधन ऐसे प्टे अथवा बटाई पर ली गयी भूिम पर कृ िष कायर् है। प्टेदार के अन्तगर्त असामी प्टेदार, सरकारी प्टेदार, तथा िनजी प्टेदार सिम्मिलत होगें।" 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. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the main reason for rejecting the petitioner's claim is that the deceased was working at a factory called Olumpus Glass Company as a daily wager. It is to be noted that this particular factory is 15 kms away from the village of the petitioner and the petitioner contends that during the off-season, he would work as a daily wager at the Olumpus Glass Company to make ends meet. This aspect of the matter has not been considered in the impugned order. 10. 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. WRIC No. 10081 of 2025 2 11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed at this stage itself. 12. The order dated 26.04.2025 passed by respondent no.2 is set-aside. 13. Matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. October 15, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- WRIC No. 10081 of 2025 3 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench