Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39525-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24911 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Shanti Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner's claim for compensation in terms of the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana on account of death of petitioner's son, has been denied consideration vide order impugned dated 30.04.2022 on the ground that there is no land recorded in the name of deceased and the claim has also been filed after delay of 75 days of the accident, which is beyond the limitation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the application of the petitioner submitted on 26.02.2021 before the District Magistrate, Basti, it was clearly stated that the deceased was a sharecropper, working with the tenant holder Vidyabhushan Tripathi and other farmers but this fact has not been noticed while rejecting petitioner's claim. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the Government Order dated 28.2.2020 which defines the "agriculturist", to include a landless labourer who works as a sharecropper with other tenure holder. It is, therefore, submitted that claim of the petitioner was covered under the scheme. 4. So far as the rejection of petitioner's claim on the ground of delayed submission of application is concerned, it is submitted that in view of the govt. order dated 14.03.2023, the limitation of three months is externable by a period of three months on sufficient explanation. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Gautam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 3 others reported in 2020 (11) ADJ, 321 to submit that beneficial provisions of the scheme ought to be liberally construed. Argument is that in such circumstances, rejection of the petitioner's claim on this count is also unsustainable. 5. Since the scheme also includes an "agriculturist" who works as sharecropper in terms of the govt. order dated 28.02.2020 as such petitioner's claim is liable to be examined, afresh, by the competent authority. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that the authority competent be permitted to revisit the issue, in accordance with the aforesaid govt. orders. 7. Admittedly, scheme of the State is a beneficial scheme and ought to be construed liberally. Petitioner submits that being a rustic villager the lack of knowledge about scheme ought not deny her the benefit under the scheme. 8. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present writ petition with direction upon respondent no.2 District Magistrate, Basti to accord fresh consideration to the petitioner's claim for payment of compensation, keeping in view the govt. orders dated 28.02.2020 and 14.03.2023, by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The authority shall keep in mind the object of the scheme while taking fresh decision in the matter. 9. The order impugned in this writ petition shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed by the concerned District Magistrate. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Ashok Kr. Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad