HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31828 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the decision of the Committee headed by the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Auraiya dated 17.04.2022, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia amount as compensation under the "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), passed in File No. 515, at Serial No. 87, of the minutes of the meeting dated 17.04.2022 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). 3. Case of the petitioner is that her husband, Nand Lal, along with his father, Hira Lal, the recorded 'bhumidhar' of Plot No. 494 were cultivating the land, which was the only source of livelihood of their family. Her husband died due to drowning in the village 'nala' and as such, she was entitled for compensation under Clause (2) of the Scheme. 4. Petitioner further contends that in support of her claim, she had relied upon the G.D. entry dated 25.12.2021 of Police Station-Phaphund Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamta Prasad, Shivendra Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kusma .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And Another .....Respondent(s) (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) which records the death of her husband, Nand Lal S/o Hira Lal on the information received from her neighbour one Sri Brij Nandan. The Inquest Report prepared by the Police Station- Phaphund (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) shows the cause of death of Nand Lal as drowning due to falling into the 'nala'. The post mortem report dated 25.12.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), also shows the cause of death as asphyxia and ante mortem drowning. Thus in view of the aforesaid facts, the death of her husband was established and she was entitled for compensation under the aforesaid Scheme. 5. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Committee headed by respondent no. 2 in its meeting held on 17.04.2022, relying on the report of the Deputy District Magistrate, Bidhuna which states that the cause of death of the deceased is suspicious/unknown. 6. Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the Guidelines dated 24.02.2020 relating to the Scheme refers to Clause-5 which states that the scope of the Scheme includes compensation for accidental death/disability of a farmer due to fire, floods, electrocution, snake-bite, attack by animals and drowning in sea, river, pond, lakes, puddle (pokhar) and wells. Relying on the aforesaid clause of the guidelines under the Scheme, counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the cause of death of the husband of the petitioner was drowning, she was covered for being duly compensated under the Scheme. 7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, when confronted with the Inquest-Report and Post-mortem Report, filed as Annexure 4 & 5 to the writ petition, could not dispute that the relevant factors have not been considered. 8. In view of the same, the impugned decision of the respondent no. 2 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compensation under the Scheme by the order dated 17.04.2022, passed on the File No. 515, is unsustainable and is accordingly set-aside. 9. The matter is relegated back to the respondent no. 2 to be decided afresh after giving due consideration to the Inquest Report and Post mortem Report prepared by the police of Police Station Phaphund within WRIC No. 31828 of 2025 2 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. Writ petition is accordingly, allowed. September 12, 2025 A. Mandhani WRIC No. 31828 of 2025 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad