Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130710-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14206 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation under Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna dated 28.02.2020 on account of death of his wife, Kiran Devi on 30.09.2022 has been rejected on the ground that she was not recorded as a tenure holder/co-tenure holder in the revenue records but the land was in the name of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in rural set-up where the land is recorded in the name of husband, the wife equally contributes to agricultural activities and would, therefore, be covered under paragraph 2(2) of the Scheme. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, places reliance on the case of Umesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Writ-C No.6477 of 2025), which also related to a claim under the same scheme from District- Prayagraj. Initially, the claim was rejected on the same ground but later on, the matter was revisited and a sum of Rs.5 lacs was sanctioned. The order in the said case is as follows: "Following orders were passed on 5.3.2025: "Petitioner's claim for compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana is rejected on the ground that the deceased was not recorded as bhumidhar and that her husband alone is an agriculturist. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the scheme is a welfare scheme and even sharecroppers have been treated to be agriculturist for the purpose of claim. It is stated that in the indian households where agriculture is the primary activity, the contribution of wife is equally important, if not more. The ladies in the family also go to the fields and support the male members in the conduct of cultivation etc. Merely because wife is not recorded can hardly be a ground to deny the status of agriculturist to the deceased. Prima facie, we find substance in the matter. Learned Standing counsel, however, seeks 10 days' time to obtain instructions in the matter or file reply. Put up as fresh, once again, on 19th March." When the matter was taken up next, this Court passed following order on 19.3.2025: "Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from the Sub Divisional Officer, Bara, Prayagraj. The issue noticed by us in the previous order of the Court dated 5th March, 2025 is likely to have consequences for large number of other persons. We deem it appropriate to grant a further opportunity to learned State Counsel to obtain specific instructions from the State Government on the matter in issue. In present times when various progressive measures are being taken by the State to improve the condition of women in the society, it would be a regressive step for the State to deny benefit of the scheme to the lady of the house in an agricultural family only because she is not recorded in the revenue records as a bhumidhar. Specific instructions will be obtained from the concerned Secretary by the next date fixed. Post as fresh, once again, on 2.4.2025." Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, the claim of the petitioner has been reconsidered by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs has been sanctioned to the petitioner. In view of the above stand taken by the respondents, we find that grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of." 4. Learned Standing Counsel very fairly states that in view of the aforesaid fact, the District Magistrate, Prayagraj would revisit the claim of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 and remit the matter back to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj for revisiting the claim in the light of the stand taken in Writ-C No.6477 of 2025 (Umesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. 6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad