HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33012 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura, whereby the petitioner’s claim for payment of insurance amount under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Kalyan Yojna on account of the death of her son, Saurav Singh, has been rejected. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her son, who was engaged as a labourer on Batai in the field of one Chandan Singh, died in a road accident on 03.11.2024. The petitioner claims entitlement to the benefits of the aforesaid scheme. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even a Bataidar is covered under the scheme, and in support thereof, an affidavit of the land owner Chandan Singh has been filed, which clearly establishes that the petitioner’s son was working as a Bataidar at the time of his death. Without considering the aforesaid material evidence on record, the District Magistrate, Mathura, has passed the impugned order with the following observation: 5. "मृतक भूिमहीन होने के कारण दावा िनरस्त िकया जाता है।" 6. It is contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking one, passed without application of mind and in disregard of the relevant material Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arunendra Kumar Shukla, Ram Krishna Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Tejo .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) available on record. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the claim was rejected as the petitioner’s son was landless. 8. Upon consideration, we find that the petitioner has produced sufficient material to establish that her son was working as a Bataidar in the field of Chandan Singh. The affidavit of Chandan Singh to that effect has been placed on record and its veracity has not been disputed. The impugned order, as extracted above, is non-speaking and has been passed in complete ignorance of the evidence on record. 9. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application within a period of one month from today. In case such application is filed, the District Magistrate, Mathura shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and in the light of the scheme and evidence on record, within a further period of two months. September 19, 2025 Sumaira WRIC No. 33012 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad