Allahabad High Court
Vilyata vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6859 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vilyata
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Singh,Abhay Raj Singh,Satyajeet Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Notice on behalf of the opposite parties nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. For the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to opposite party no.3, hence notice to him is dispensed with.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15/06/2020, at Annexure No.1 passed by committee presided the District Magistrate, by which he rejected the claim of the petitioner.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties to release the payment to the petitioner under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna.
(III) Issue any other order or direction may kindly also be passed which the Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded to the petitioner."
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna has been denied. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Examination Committee (District Level Committee) has rejected the claim of the petitioner having found the delay of five months fourteen days. It is submitted that this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 passed in Writ-C No.15983 of 2020 (Gautam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others) has directed that all the claims filed within a period of three years from the death of farmer or within a period of three years from the date of rejection of the claim, either partly or wholly by the Insurance Company should be treated to be filed within limitation period and should be processed on their merits.
The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below:
"As innumerable cases are filed seeking compensation under the schemes across the State, we direct that all the claims filed within a period of three years from the date of the death or within a period of three years from the date of rejection of claim, either partly or wholly by the Insurance Company, should be treated to be filed within limitation and should be processed on their merits.
As we have held that the limitation provided under the said Scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary and have substituted the said period by a period of three years, as recorded above, we direct the Registrar General of this Court to transmit a copy of this order to The Chief Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh and Director Institutional Finance, State of Uttar Pradesh, for its communication to all the District Magistrates in the State and the District Magistrates in turn are directed to entertain and process the claims filed under the Scheme within limitation as prescribed above by this Court treating them to be within limitation and the same should be processed on their merits.
We have directed and provided for the limitation of three years, till the time the State Government takes an appropriate decision and amends limitation clauses of the Scheme to make them more reasonable taking into account the socio economic condition of the society as well the laws of India.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said order.
The District Magistrate, Jaunpur shall now process the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law on its merits treating the same to be within limitation and the same shall be processed expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the copy of this order."
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the period of limitation provided under the scheme is three months for consideration of the claim.
We have considered the submissions of parties' counsel and gone through the record.
In view of aforesaid judgment, as noted above, the period of limitation shall be counted as three years.
The decision of the competent authority dated 15.06.2020 with respect to the petitioner rejecting the claim is quashed.
We dispose of this writ petition in terms of judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 passed in the case of Gautam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others (supra) and direct the concerning competent authority to process the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law on its merit, treating the same to be within limitation and the same shall be processed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the copy of this order.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
lakshman
