##PAGE1##

AFR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Surendra …..Petitioner(s)

Versus State of U P and another …..Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gyanedra Pratap Singh, Krishna Prakash, Manish Prajapati, Narendra Pratap Kushawaha, Parashuram Barnawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : CSC Judgment reserved on 25.09.2026 Judgment delivered on 26.10.2026 Court No . 5 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

(Per : Garima Prashad, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Shanker, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for the benefit under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) on the ground that his deceased wife had no agricultural land recorded in her name and was not a bataidar. The petitioner also seeks a direction for payment of the benefit under the Scheme.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner’s wife, Smt. Meera, died in a road accident on 20.08.2020. A First Information Report was registered on 21.08.2020 at Police Station Jataha Bazar, District Kushinagar, as Case Crime No. 0101 of 2020, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The death certificate records the date of death as 20.08.2020.

4. The petitioner submitted his application for the benefit under the Scheme on 31.10.2020. He relied upon the Khatauni, the First Information Report, the death certificate and the family-register extract. The Khatauni records the petitioner as a co-tenure-holder along with his brothers. This position is also admitted in paragraph 4 of the counter-

affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Kushinagar.

5. The claim was rejected on 24.05.2022. The communication placed on record states that the deceased had no land in her name and was not a bataidar and, therefore, the petitioner was ineligible. It further describes his repeated applications as without basis and liable to be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Smt. Meera was engaged in agricultural work and that the income from such work maintained the family. She worked on the family holding and also performed agricultural labour for other agriculturists. The petitioner and the children depended upon her contribution. The holding was recorded in the petitioner’s name, and the deceased assisted him in cultivation. Agriculture was her principal source of livelihood. Her claim falls within Clause 2(2) of the Scheme, which covers an earning member of the family of a recorded tenure-holder or co-tenure-holder.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the authority has confined eligibility to a person having land in her own name or working as a bataidar and has overlooked the separate category of earning family members. The petitioner maintains that the Government Order dated

28.02.2020 has been wrongly interpreted.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State supports the rejection on the basis of the affidavit of the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Padrauna, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Kushinagar. It is submitted that Smt. Meera was not recorded as a co- tenure-holder in the Khatauni; the recorded co-tenure-holders were the petitioner and his brothers. The description of the deceased as a co-

sharer in the petition is, therefore, disputed.

9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the deceased was a household lady and that the petitioner has furnished no documentary evidence showing her as a recorded co-sharer of agricultural land. The State maintains that the rejection accords with the Government Orders dated 28.02.2020 and 02.03.2020, that the repeated applications are based on incorrect facts, and that the Writ Petition deserves dismissal