Allahabad High Court
Smt.Arti Verma & Ors. vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Revenue & ... on 21 November, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 32027 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt.Arti Verma & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Revenue & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Misra,Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, Lucknow (respondent no.3) contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, whereby their claim for grant of benefit of Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana consequent upon the death of husband of petitioner no.1-Smt. Arti Verma (Late Ambrish Verma) has been rejected on the ground that petitioner no.1, widow of the deceased, has not raised her claim during the stipulated period rather she raised her claim after a considerable delay of about three years from the date of death of her husband, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was not only incorrect, but also hyper-technical.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 18/19.4.2016, the husband of petitioner no.1, Late Ambrish Verma, met with a road accident and died on the date itself. After completion of last rites of deceased Ambrish Verma, the petitioners came to know the beneficial scheme for poor farmer launched by the State Government, namely, Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana (hereinafter referred to as "Scheme"). Immediately thereafter, petitioner no.1 has filed an application dated 28.04.2016 to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Lucknow, requesting therein to grant her benefit under the Scheme. On receipt of the said application, the concerned Tehsildar directed the Lekhpal to inquire into the matter and submit his report. Pursuant to the direction of the concerned Tehsildar, the Lekhpal has completed inquiry in August, 2016 and, thereafter, the petitioners have waited for about six months but nothing was done. He has submitted that the petitioner no.1 has submitted her application within the stipulated period but as the Lekhpal or Tehsildar failed to trace the file of the petitioners, therefore, they are imposing the allegation of delay in making claim against the petitioners. Thus, the rejection of the claim on such a flimsy ground was uncalled for. It is nothing but an attempt on the part of the respondents to shirk its responsibility and liability.
We have perused the application dated 28.4.2016 filed by the petitioner no.1 contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. It is addressed to the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow and bears the date 28.4.2016 and contains the noting of the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow dated 28.4.2016 which show that the claim was submitted on 28.4.2016, but surprisingly enough the impugned order states that information regarding death was not submitted by the petitioner no. 1 within the stipulated period, which appears to be incorrect.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that reasons assigned while rejecting the claim of the petitioners under the Scheme by means of the impugned order dated 5.9.2019 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated 5.9.2019 and direct the opposite parties to process the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the policy of the Government and take prompt decision thereon accordingly with expedition.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.) Order Date :- 21.11.2019 Ajit/-