HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30092 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. The petitioner made claim for compensation under Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, upon death of her son Sanjay, aged 22 years on 10.10.2024 in a road accident. In support of the claim she filed affidavit of Kunj Bihari, her husband who is having agricultural land and is recorded as Khatedar No.00034 in the Khatauni, stating that on account of his old age, he was not cultivating his field, and the said work was done by his deceased son. The claim has been rejected by the impugned order recording the following findings:- " a. The deceased was unmarried and was working as a labourer. b. The Gram Pradhan in his statement dated 26.06.2025 stated that he was working as a labourer. c. Even Kunj Bihar husband of the petitioner is working as a labourer. He is the sole bread earner for the family." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the definition of agriculturist given in Government Order dated 28.02.2020 (paragraph 2), according to which any member of family of a person recorded as Khatedar/ Sah-Khatedar and whose main source of livelihood was the income from agricultural land would be covered. He further submits that in view of the affidavit filed by husband of the petitioner stating that his son was cultivating the agricultural land belonging to him, the claim should have been accepted. The statement of Pradhan was factually Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Jaideep Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Chandramati .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) incorrect. 3. We have gone through the scheme, and we find that under paragraph No.2 of the scheme any member of the family of Khatedar/ Sahkhatedar whose main source of livelihood is income from agricultural land is duly covered under the definition of agriculturalist. It is noteworthy that even a landless person who is cultivating field of some other person on batai is entitled to benefit of the scheme. In view of affidavit of husband of the petitioner that his deceased son was cultivating the agricultural land belonging to him, he would be covered under the scheme. Mere assertion that he was working as a labourer was not sufficient to negate the claim. 4. As such, the impugned order is found to be unsustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioner on merits within six weeks' from the date of communication of the instant order. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of. September 1, 2025 Ashish/- WRIC No. 30092 of 2025 2 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad