Deepak Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Chief Secy. U.P. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 36736 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Deepak Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Chief Secy. U.P. ... on 8 November, 2024

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73677-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9531 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Kumar Dixit,Pramod Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Considering the nature of the dispute and the documents on the records, which are official records, we see no reason to call for a counter affidavit.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record what comes out is that death of the petitioner's father Late Uma Shankar was on account of a fall from a tree, therefore, accidental, however, the claim of the petitioner, his son, under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana UP has been declined as is evident from Annexure-1 at Serial No. 32 on the ground that the deceased- Uma Shankar was not a farmer and did not have any agricultural land recorded in his name whereas copy of the khatauni pertaining to Khasra No. 531-Ga situated at Village-Rain, Pragana- Bachhrawan, Tehsil- Maharajganj, District- Raebareli for the fasli 1425-1430 contains the name of the deceased- Uma Shankar S/0 Chaudi Lal in the remarks column as having been recorded after the death of his father- Chaudhi Lal. Uma Shankar, father of the petitioner died on 2.9.2020 and after the death of his father, name of the petitioner has also been recorded. Even in the report, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 8 there is mention about the name of Uma Shankar and the petitioner- Deepak Kumar and finding has been recorded in khatauni, therefore, it is surprising as to how the claim has been rejected on the aforesaid ground. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the decision so taken is liable to be quashed, accordingly, the quash the decision contained in the list -1, annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition at serial no. 32 pertaining to Late Uma Shankar, S/o Chaudhi Lal and direct the District Magistrate to take a fresh decision in the matter positively within six weeks and communicate to the petitioner, accordingly.

3. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations..

4. It is, however, made clear that any of the reports or khatauni referred hereinabove is found to be fabricated, then the benefit of this judgment shall not be given to the petitioner.

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 8.11.2024

Anuj Singh