Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.@mdashHeard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Additional Chief standing counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh for the second respondent. The State of U.P., which is petitioner herein, has challenged the award dated 16.9.2014 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Azamgarh in Case No. 860 of 2013 awarding a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the second respondent on account of death of her husband, extending the benefit of Krishak Durghatna Bima Yojna, to the dependant. The State Government launched an insurance policy for covering the agriculturists who die or get disabled, by means of a Government order dated 22.10.2012. The husband of the second respondent, namely, Indrasen Gaur died on 27.2.2013. The second respondent filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Azamgarh praying for payment of insurance amount of Rs. 5 lacs under the Government order dated 22.10.2012 alleging that her husband was an agriculturist and was covered by the Government order dated 22.10.2012 and despite such claim being made before the district authorities, the same has not been granted. The Permanent Lok Adalat, by impugned award, allowed the petition and directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the second respondent alongwith interest @ 9% per annum as per the Government order dated 22.10.2012. A perusal of the award reveals that two members of the Permanent Lok Adalat have ruled in favour of the second respondent whereas, the Chairman had purportedly rejected the claim. Under Section 22E(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. Thus, it is not in dispute between the parties that the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is for payment of Rs. 5 lacs to the second respondent alongwith interest.
2. The only submission made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, is that the husband of the second respondent was not recorded in the revenue records and thus, he was not covered by the scheme. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the definition of ''agriculturist'' given in para 2 of the Government order dated 22.10.2012. which provides that ''agriculturist'' means a person whose name is recorded as a tenure holder/co-tenure holder in the revenue records, i.e., khatauni and who is between the age of 12 and 70 years. It is submitted that the name of husband of the second respondent was not entered in the revenue record on the date he died and, therefore, he was not covered by the scheme. The impugned award is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent pointed out that Mahatam, the father-in-law of the second respondent inherited agricultural land. He died on 12.7.2012. Thereafter, husband of the second respondent initiated proceedings for mutation of his name in the revenue records in place of his deceased father. However, while the said application was pending, he died on 27.2.2013, i.e., barely after a period of 7 months. He has referred to the findings recorded in the impugned award while deciding issue No. 1 wherein, it is found that after the death of the husband of the second respondent, her name was entered in CH Form No. 11.
4. It has come in the order of the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat that name of the second respondent was entered on the basis of an order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sogrhi dated 30.5.2013 in proceedings under Section 12. Alongwith her name, names of the other sons of Mahatam, namely, Sukhari and Gopal were also entered, The majority decision holds that it is not the case of any of the parties that name of the second respondent was entered in the revenue records as she herself had purchased such property, or acquired it by gift or will. Thus, it has been concluded that name of the second respondent came to be mutated, as an heir of her deceased father-in-law Mahatam and her husband Indrasen. It has been further held that delay on part of the revenue authorities, in mutating the name of the husband of the second respondent in the revenue records, would not deprive her of the benefits of the Scheme.
5. This Court after going through the findings recorded in this regard by the majority of the members of the Permanent Lok Adalat has found no illegality therein. The Government order dated 22.10.2012 is a socio beneficial measure. Its purpose is to provide social security to the agriculturists and the members of their family. Even if the name of the husband of the second respondent could not be mutated in the revenue records during his life-time, the same will not disentitle the second respondent to claim the insurance amount under the Government order dated 22.10.2012. Concededly, no third party had set up any claim over the property in question. Now, name of the second respondent already stands mutated, as an heir of her husband. Para 2 of the Government order will include even those persons who were tenure holders/co-tenure holders, in their own right and were entitled to their names being mutated, but for some reason or the other, their name could not be mutated in the revenue record, at the time of their death or accident. Any contrary interpretation will defeat the very object of the Government order dated 22.10.2012.
6. No other submission has been made. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
