Surendra vs State Of U P And Another

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27384 of 2022
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.

2
WRIC No. - 27384 of 2022
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

3
WRIC No. - 27384 of 2022
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
with costs.
10. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record,
the question arising for determination is whether a woman who
undertook agricultural work on the holding recorded in her husband’s
name, and whose principal source of livelihood was agriculture, is
excluded from Clause 2(2) merely because she was neither a recorded
tenure-holder nor a bataidar.
11. The Scheme was introduced by the Government Order dated
28.02.2020 with effect from 14.09.2019 to provide monetary relief in
cases of accidental death or disability of farmers. Clause 2 defines

4
WRIC No. - 27384 of 2022
eligibility in three alternative categories. Its material provisions read as
follows:
“ 2- ( )-
पात्रता कृषककीपरिभाषा
, /
यहयोजनाउत्तरप्रदेशकेनिवासीऐसेकृषकोंकेलिएहै जोदुर्घटनावशमृत
-
दिव्यांगहोजातेहैं।कृषककातात्पर्यनिम्नलिखितसेहैः
(1) /
राजस्वअभिलेखोंअर्थात्खतौनीमेंदर्जखातेदार सहखातेदार।
अथवा
(2) / (Bread winner)
खातेदार सहखातेदारकेपरिवारकेऐसेकमाऊसदस्य
/
जिनकीआजीविकाकामुख्यस्रोतखातेदार सहखातेदारकेनामदर्जभूमि सेहोने

वालीकृषिआयहै।
अथवा
(3)
ऐसेभूमिहीनव्यक्ति जोपट्टेसेप्राप्तभूमि परअथवाबटाईपरकृषिकार्यकरते

हैंतथाजिनकीजीविकाकामुख्यसाधनऐसेपट्टेअथवाबटाईपरलीगयीभूमि पर
,
कृषि कार्यहै।पट्टेदारकेअन्तर्गतअसामीपट्टेदार सरकारीपट्टेदारतथानिजीपट्टेदार
”
सम्मि लितहोंगे।
The English translation is:
“ 2. Eligibility (Definition of Farmer)—The Scheme applies to
farmers residing in Uttar Pradesh who suffer accidental death or
disability. A farmer means:
(1) a tenure-holder/co-tenure-holder recorded in the revenue
records, namely, the Khatauni;
or
(2) an earning member (breadwinner) of the family of a tenure-
holder/co-tenure-holder whose principal source of livelihood is

5
WRIC No. - 27384 of 2022
agricultural income derived from land recorded in the name of that
tenure-holder/co-tenure-holder.
or
(3) a landless person who carries on agricultural work on leased
land or on a share-cropping basis and whose principal means of
livelihood is agricultural work on that land. Lessees include Asami
lessees, government lessees and private lessees.”
12. Clause 2(3) separately covers landless persons carrying on
agricultural work on leased land or on a share-cropping basis, whose
principal means of livelihood is agricultural work on that land. Each
category is an alternative basis of eligibility. A family member satisfying
Clause 2(2) need not also establish that she was a recorded tenure-holder
under Clause 2(1) or a bataidar under Clause 2(3).
13. Clause 11( ) further provides for the documents supporting a claim
ज
upon the accidental death of a person covered by Clause 2(2) or 2(3):
2 2 3
“
परन्तुकृषककीपात्रताकीपरिभाषाकेप्रस्तर केउपप्रस्तर या कीस्थि ति

मेंकृषककीदुर्घटनावशमृत्युहोनेपरपरिवारकेसभीसदस्योंकासम्मि लित
, ,
सहमति काशपथपत्र जोउपजिलाधिकारीद्वाराप्रतिहस्ताक्षरितहो मान्यहोगा।

केवलऐसेमामलेजोकि विवादितहोंउनमेंसक्षमन्यायालयसेप्राप्तउत्तराधिकार
- ”
प्रमाण पत्रमान्यहोगा।
The English translation is:
“ However, in cases under sub-paragraph 2 or 3 of paragraph 2
defining eligibility as a farmer, upon the farmer’s accidental death,
a joint affidavit of consent of all family members, countersigned
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, shall be accepted. Only in

6
WRIC No. - 27384 of 2022
disputed cases shall a succession certificate obtained from the
competent Court be accepted.”
14. This provision recognises claims in respect of earning family
members who are not recorded tenure-holders. It also prescribes the
manner of establishing the claimant’s entitlement to receive payment.
The documentary requirement must be observed; it does not restrict the
substantive eligibility of the deceased to persons having land in their
own names.
15. Clause 2(2) expressly recognises that an earning member may derive
her livelihood from cultivation of land recorded in another member’s
name. Its application depends upon the deceased’s agricultural work and
principal source of livelihood. Requiring the land to stand in the
deceased’s own name would remove the distinction between Clauses
2(1) and 2(2) and deprive the latter provision of its purpose.
16. The Scheme is a beneficial welfare measure. Its provisions must be
read together in a manner which advances its object, while preserving
the conditions which the Government has prescribed. The authority must
examine the actual agricultural role of the deceased and the source of her
livelihood rather than decide the claim only by the name appearing in the
revenue record.
17. This approach to agricultural livelihood has been explained by the
Division Bench in Smt. Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P. and others, Writ–C
No. 29414 of 2021, decided on 18.12.2025. In paragraphs 17 to 21, the
Court held that the Scheme does not require the holding to be recorded
in the deceased’s own name. The inquiry concerns actual agricultural
work and principal livelihood. The Court also applied the principle of
beneficial interpretation stated in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya

7
WRIC No. - 27384 of 2022
Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527. The rejection was quashed and a fresh
inquiry directed because the deceased’s alleged shop income remained
disputed.
18. The agricultural work of a deceased wife was considered by the
Division Bench in Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, Writ–C No.
1006 of 2026, decided on 24.03.2026. In paragraphs 12 to 15, the Court
applied Clause 2(2) and Gayatri Devi and held that land recorded in an
elder family member’s name did not exclude the spouses who cultivated
it. The unsupported denial of agricultural dependence was rejected. In
paragraph 17, the Court directed grant of the benefit under the Scheme.
19. Clause 2(2) uses the expression “ (Bread winner)”. It
कमाऊसदस्य
requires an earning member whose principal source of livelihood is
agricultural income from the recorded holding. It does not require that
member to be the sole breadwinner. More than one member of a family
may contribute to cultivation and derive a livelihood from it. The fact
that the husband owns land or also earns does not exclude the wife who
performs agricultural work and depends upon its income.
20. Agricultural work within a family may be undertaken jointly by the
spouses. A wife’s contribution to cultivation is not excluded merely
because she also attends to the household. Her status as an earning
member is determined by the work she performs and the livelihood she
derives from it. A separate wage paid by her husband for work on the
family holding is not a condition stated in Clause 2(2).
21. In the present case, the State admits that the petitioner is a recorded
co-tenure-holder. The deceased was his wife and a member of his family.
The assertion in the petition that she was herself a recorded co-sharer is
not borne out by the Khatauni. That assertion does not establish

8
WRIC No. - 27384 of 2022
eligibility under Clause 2(1), but it does not defeat the separate claim
under Clause 2(2), which must be considered on its own terms.
22. The petitioner has consistently asserted that Smt. Meera performed
agricultural work and contributed to the family’s livelihood. The family-
register extract records agriculture as the occupation of the household.
The State describes her as a household lady and denies her recorded title,
but places no material showing that her principal source of livelihood
was other than agriculture. Its demand for documentary proof of her own
co-tenure-holder status addresses Clause 2(1) and does not answer the
agricultural basis of the claim under Clause 2(2).
23. The First Information Report records that the petitioner ran a tea
shop in front of his house. This fact must also be considered. The
petitioner’s earnings from a shop do not establish that the deceased
herself derived her principal livelihood from that activity. The relevant
inquiry under Clause 2(2) concerns her work and her principal source of
livelihood. Her participation in cultivation of the recorded family
holding and dependence upon its agricultural income are not displaced
merely by the husband’s separate earnings.
24. The deceased’s work for other agriculturists, as pleaded, forms part
of the account of her agricultural occupation. The present entitlement
rests upon her work on the holding recorded in the petitioner’s name and
the agricultural income derived from it. The claim is therefore examined
under Clause 2(2), and does not depend upon treating her as a bataidar.
25. The impugned decision proceeds upon the absence of land in the
deceased’s name and her absence of bataidar status. It overlooks the
admitted holding of the petitioner and the deceased’s agricultural role as
an earning member of his family.

9
WRIC No. - 27384 of 2022
26. On consideration of the Scheme, the revenue record, the family-
register extract and the petitioner’s account of the agricultural work
performed by the deceased, it is held that Smt. Meera was an earning
member of the family whose principal source of livelihood was
agricultural income derived from the holding recorded in the petitioner’s
name. The grounds relied upon by the State do not exclude her from
Clause 2(2). The petitioner is accordingly entitled to the benefit under
the Scheme in respect of her accidental death.
27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated
24.05.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar, rejecting the
petitioner’s claim under the Scheme, is hereby quashed.
28. The District Magistrate, Kushinagar, is directed to pass a fresh order
on the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the findings and
observations made above. The exercise shall be completed within four
weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
October 26, 2026
Kuldeep
Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad