The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman who performs agricultural work on land recorded in her husband's name, and whose principal source of livelihood is the agricultural income from that land, qualifies as an 'earning member' under Clause 2(2) of the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana. A Division Bench comprising Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Garima Prashad ruled that the claim cannot be rejected merely because the deceased was neither a recorded tenure-holder nor a bataidar (tenant). The court allowed a writ petition filed by a husband whose wife died in a road accident, quashing the District Magistrate's rejection order.
How does Clause 2 of the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana define a farmer?
Clause 2 of the Scheme, introduced by Government Order dated 28.02.2020 with effect from 14.09.2019, defines a farmer in three alternative categories: a recorded tenure-holder or co-tenure-holder; an earning member of such a holder's family whose principal livelihood is agricultural income from the recorded land; and a landless person cultivating land on lease or share-cropping basis.
Category | Description under Clause 2 |
|---|---|
Clause 2(1) | Tenure-holder or co-tenure-holder recorded in the Khatauni |
Clause 2(2) | Earning member (breadwinner) of such holder's family with principal livelihood from agricultural income |
Clause 2(3) | Landless person cultivating land on lease or share-cropping (bataidar) |
The petitioner's wife, Smt. Meera, died in a road accident on 20.08.2020. He applied for relief under the Scheme on 31.10.2020, relying on the Khatauni recording him as a co-tenure-holder along with his brothers, the First Information Report, the death certificate, and the family-register extract. The District Magistrate, Kushinagar, rejected the claim on 24.05.2022 on the ground that the deceased had no land in her name and was not a bataidar. The petitioner contended that the deceased cultivated the holding recorded in his name, that the family lived on her earnings, and that the authority had overlooked the separate category of earning family members under Clause 2(2). The State argued that she was a household lady, not recorded as a co-tenure-holder, and that no documentary proof of her co-sharer status had been filed.
The Bench observed that the three categories in Clause 2 are alternative bases of eligibility. A claimant under Clause 2(2) need not also establish recorded title under Clause 2(1) or bataidar status under Clause 2(3). The court stated that 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. It held that Clause 2(2) does not require the earning member to be the sole breadwinner, and that the husband's own holding or earnings do not exclude a wife who works on the land and depends on its income.
Regarding the First Information Report's mention of a tea shop run by the petitioner, the court held that his shop earnings did not demonstrate that the deceased drew her principal livelihood from that activity. The court relied on Division Bench decisions in Smt. Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P. and others, holding that the Scheme does not require the holding to be recorded in the deceased's own name, and Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, holding that land recorded in an elder family member's name did not exclude spouses who cultivated it. The court noted that the State had placed no material showing that the deceased's principal source of livelihood was anything other than agriculture.
Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 24.05.2022. The District Magistrate, Kushinagar, was directed to pass a fresh order on the claim within four weeks.