Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132291-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23674 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajwatiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey, Jaideep Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard Sri Jaideep Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 6.6.2025, passed by District Magistrate, District Chitrakoot (respondent no. 2), whereby the application of the petitioner as widow of late Manoj Kumar, for payment of compensation under Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, has been rejected, observing that as per enquiry report of SDM, Manikpur dated 27.5.2025, the husband of the petitioner was engaged in painting work and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the said Scheme. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was earning his livelihood working as Bataidar (sharecropper). He was cultivating the land of one Shatrughan who was having half share in Plot No. 150/2, area 0.7000 hectare. He filed an affidavit dated 13.6.2024 stating that Manoj Kumar (son of Ganga Prasad), late husband of the petitioner, was working as Bataidar at the time of his death due to electrocution. Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards paragraph 3-kha of G.O. dated 26.2.2020 in relation to the Scheme which provides for the manner in which a Bataidar is to be identified. It specifically provides that the identification of Bataidar would be made on basis of a certificate from the land owner that the deceased was cultivating his field as a Bataidar. He submits that respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned order, has not considered the said affidavit and has solely relied on the report of SDM. 4. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the State respondents, fairly admits that in the impugned order, there is no consideration to the affidavit of Shatrughan, filed in support of the claim of the petitioner. 5. As under the Scheme, the identification of Bataidar is to be made on basis of affidavit of the land owner and as such, an affidavit was duly filed, therefore, its non-consideration has vitiated the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6.6.2025 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation along with true attested copy of the instant order, annexing therewith copy of the affidavit of land owner dated 13.6.2024 and in which event, respondent no. 2 will decide the same afresh, keeping in mind the provisions of the Scheme and the affidavit of the land owner, along with other materials, including the statement of the petitioner and the report of SDM. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad