Muggan v. State of U.P. and three others), wherein this Court had passed the following orde

Pramod Kumar Srivastava : : C.S.C. Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that younger brother of the petitioner namely Mukhtar Ali @ Mukhtar Ahmad son of Kasim Ali was a farmer and was doing cultivation in his village i.e. Chhimirachha, but unfortunately in a road accident, he died on 26.1.2014 at about 1:30 PM.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner further submits that on the same day, a First Information Report being Case Crime No. 10/2014 was registered for the said incident under Sections 279 and 304 of IPC at Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.4/Tehsildar, Mahjhanpur, Kaushambi with the prayer to provide the benefit under the Scheme of Krishak Durghatana Beema Yojana on 1.4.2014, but the authorities had not provided the same to the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved by the act of the concerned authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ C No. 11110 of 2017 (Muggan Vs. State of U.P. and three others), wherein this Court had passed the following order : "The petitioner's application for payment of compensation under the Kisan Yojna is pending consideration before the District Magistrate. We dispose of the matter directing the District Magistrate to pass 2 WRIC No. 16129 of 2018 appropriate orders on the of the application petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 23.03.2017, which was duly forwarded through registered post on 30.03.2017. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authority passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that due to negligence on the part of the concerned authority, the petitioner’s claim could not be decided within one year, and since a period of about three years and eight months had already elapsed, the benefit under the scheme could not be extended to petitioner. The impugned order further records departmental proceedings have been initiated against the erring official, namely Vaidyanath, posted as Patal Sahayak. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order, contending that it is unsustainable and bad in the eye of law.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent–State gave force on the contents of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit to contend that in compliance with the order dated

09.03.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11110 of 2017, the petitioner submitted an application on 30.03.2017 seeking payment of Kishan Durghatna Beema compensation for the death of his younger brother, Mukhtar Ali @ Mukhtar Ahmad, who is alleged to have died in an accident on 26.01.2014.

7. Pursuant thereto, the District Magistrate directed the In-Charge, Writ Cell, to take steps in accordance with law. Upon which a report was called from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi. The report, submitted on 06.11.2017, considered the Government Orders dated 22.10.2012 and 14.09.2016 relating to the Samajwadi Kishan Evam Sarvahit Beema Yojna. It was noted therein that upon the coming into force of the Government Order dated 14.09.2016, the earlier Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna came to an end with effect from 14.09.2016.

8. Since the petitioner’s application was received only on 30.03.2017, and in view of the fact that under the relevant Government Orders the District 3 WRIC No. 16129 of 2018 Magistrate was competent to decide claims under the Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna only within one year, coupled with the fact that the said scheme itself had come to an end with effect from 14.09.2016, the District Magistrate, after obtaining legal opinion from the District Government Counsel, has rightly passed the impugned order.

9. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the District Magistrate has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had not produced any material to establish that the deceased was a farmer. No revenue records, post-mortem report, or documents negating his engagement in business activities were filed. In the absence of proof that the deceased was dependent solely on agricultural income, the claim was unsustainable. Hence, the impugned order suffers from no illegality, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that impugned order deserves to be quashed as the petitioner had already applied for benefit under the scheme on April 1, 2014, immediately after the death of his brother, but the authorities did not act on it in time. The delay was attributable to the authorities themselves. The petitioner, in pursuance of the direction of the writ Court, had duly submitted his representation within time. Therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit of the scheme for the lapses on the part of the authority. Further, the order impugned reflects that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to establish that the deceased was a farmer and was eligible under the scheme, nor the reasons were recorded to justify the rejection of the petitioner's claim. The denial of benefit on technical grounds, without affording an opportunity of hearing or considering the claim on merits, is arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice.

11. In light of the same, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the District Magistrate, Kaushambi to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of grant of benefit under Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna afresh within a period of eight weeks from date, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is still open for the petitioner that he may submit a comprehensive representation before 4 WRIC No. 16129 of 2018 the authorities submitting the entire documents as required by the District Magistrate to ascertain whether the deceased was totally dependent upon the agricultural income and was not doing any business.

12. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. September 25, 2025 DKS/Rakesh (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Kumar Srivastava : : C.S.C. Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that younger brother of the petitioner namely Mukhtar Ali @ Mukhtar Ahmad son of Kasim Ali was a farmer and was doing cultivation in his village i.e. Chhimirachha, but unfortunately in a road accident, he died on 26.1.2014 at about 1:30 PM.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner further submits that on the same day, a First Information Report being Case Crime No. 10/2014 was registered for the said incident under Sections 279 and 304 of IPC at Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.4/Tehsildar, Mahjhanpur, Kaushambi with the prayer to provide the benefit under the Scheme of Krishak Durghatana Beema Yojana on 1.4.2014, but the authorities had not provided the same to the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved by the act of the concerned authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ C No. 11110 of 2017 (Muggan Vs. State of U.P. and three others), wherein this Court had passed the following order : "The petitioner's application for payment of compensation under the Kisan Yojna is pending consideration before the District Magistrate. We dispose of the matter directing the District Magistrate to pass 2 WRIC No. 16129 of 2018 appropriate orders on the of the application petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 23.03.2017, which was duly forwarded through registered post on 30.03.2017. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authority passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that due to negligence on the part of the concerned authority, the petitioner’s claim could not be decided within one year, and since a period of about three years and eight months had already elapsed, the benefit under the scheme could not be extended to petitioner. The impugned order further records departmental proceedings have been initiated against the erring official, namely Vaidyanath, posted as Patal Sahayak. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order, contending that it is unsustainable and bad in the eye of law.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent–State gave force on the contents of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit to contend that in compliance with the order dated

09.03.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11110 of 2017, the petitioner submitted an application on 30.03.2017 seeking payment of Kishan Durghatna Beema compensation for the death of his younger brother, Mukhtar Ali @ Mukhtar Ahmad, who is alleged to have died in an accident on 26.01.2014.

7. Pursuant thereto, the District Magistrate directed the In-Charge, Writ Cell, to take steps in accordance with law. Upon which a report was called from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi. The report, submitted on 06.11.2017, considered the Government Orders dated 22.10.2012 and 14.09.2016 relating to the Samajwadi Kishan Evam Sarvahit Beema Yojna. It was noted therein that upon the coming into force of the Government Order dated 14.09.2016, the earlier Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna came to an end with effect from 14.09.2016.

8. Since the petitioner’s application was received only on 30.03.2017, and in view of the fact that under the relevant Government Orders the District 3 WRIC No. 16129 of 2018 Magistrate was competent to decide claims under the Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna only within one year, coupled with the fact that the said scheme itself had come to an end with effect from 14.09.2016, the District Magistrate, after obtaining legal opinion from the District Government Counsel, has rightly passed the impugned order.

9. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the District Magistrate has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had not produced any material to establish that the deceased was a farmer. No revenue records, post-mortem report, or documents negating his engagement in business activities were filed. In the absence of proof that the deceased was dependent solely on agricultural income, the claim was unsustainable. Hence, the impugned order suffers from no illegality, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that impugned order deserves to be quashed as the petitioner had already applied for benefit under the scheme on April 1, 2014, immediately after the death of his brother, but the authorities did not act on it in time. The delay was attributable to the authorities themselves. The petitioner, in pursuance of the direction of the writ Court, had duly submitted his representation within time. Therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit of the scheme for the lapses on the part of the authority. Further, the order impugned reflects that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to establish that the deceased was a farmer and was eligible under the scheme, nor the reasons were recorded to justify the rejection of the petitioner's claim. The denial of benefit on technical grounds, without affording an opportunity of hearing or considering the claim on merits, is arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice.

11. In light of the same, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the District Magistrate, Kaushambi to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of grant of benefit under Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna afresh within a period of eight weeks from date, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is still open for the petitioner that he may submit a comprehensive representation before 4 WRIC No. 16129 of 2018 the authorities submitting the entire documents as required by the District Magistrate to ascertain whether the deceased was totally dependent upon the agricultural income and was not doing any business.

12. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. September 25, 2025 DKS/Rakesh (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad