SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
Ananda Chandra Behera, J.
Puspa Bhoi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & others - Opposite Parties
WP(C) No.2051 of 2025
Decided On : 12-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.S.Pradhan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. G.Mohanty, Standing Counsel

Eligibility for government scheme requires timely action by authorities once established by survey enrollment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition filed for direction to B.D.O., Kantapada for sanctioning a house under the PMAY Scheme - Petitioner claimed eligibility under the scheme but failed to receive sanction. Court directed B.D.O. to take steps for sanction as Petitioner is enrolled in the survey list. (Paras 2, 6, 9)

(B) Administrative Law - Entitlements under government schemes - Court emphasized the need for timely action by authorities once eligibility is established. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, eligible for a house under the PMAY scheme, had not received any sanction despite being enrolled in the survey list. The B.D.O. acknowledged the Petitioner’s eligibility according to the guidelines.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the Petitioner’s claim and deemed it appropriate to direct the B.D.O. to proceed with the sanction process for the house.

Issues: The core issues were whether the Petitioner was eligible for a house under the PMAY Scheme and the duty of the B.D.O. to act on this eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once eligibility is established, the authorities must take timely steps for sanctioning benefits under government schemes.

Result: Writ petition allowed in part, B.D.O. directed to take steps for sanction.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's eligibility for pmay scheme (Para 1 , 2)
2. b.d.o. acknowledges petitioner's inclusion in survey list (Para 3)
3. failure to sanction house despite enrollment (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's directive to b.d.o. for timely action (Para 7 , 9)
5. final disposal of the writ petition (Para 8 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) for the sanction of a house under Rural Housing, PMAY Scheme in favour of the Petitioner, as the Petitioner is entitled to get the same as per the criterias of that PMAY scheme.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that, though the Petitioner is entitled for a house under the PMAY scheme being eligible for the same, but, the B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) is not sanctioning any house in her favour in spite of her repeated request for the same.

For which, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition praying for directing the B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) for the sanction of a house under PMAY Scheme in her favour.

3. The B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) has submitted its counter stating in Para No.7 that,

“In the meantime, Government in Panchayat Raj & Drinking Water Department has issued guidelines vide letter No.19101/PR and DW, dated 21.08.2024 and as per the said guideline, a survey has been conducted and it is found that, the Petitioner eligible to enroll in the Survey list under Rural Housing Scheme and accordingly, her name has been included in the survey list. After completion of survey by 31st March, 2025, an enquiry will be conducted. If the Petitioner is found eligible in the enquiry, she will be benefitted under the scheme”.

4. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State.

5. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the name of the Petitioner has already been enrolled in the survey list under the PMAY Scheme for the sanction of a house under that PMAY scheme in her favour, but, still then, the O.P. No.3 is not taking any step for the sanction of a house under PMAY Scheme in her favour.

6. When it is forthcoming from the counter-affidavit submitted by the Sanctioning Authority of the house under PMAY Scheme i.e. B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack that, the name of the Petitioner has already been enrolled in the survey list under PMAY Scheme and when, she (Petitioner) is eligible under that scheme for the sanction of a house, then at this juncture, it is felt proper to direct the B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) to take next steps i.e. steps after enrollment under PMAY scheme for the sanction of a house under that Scheme in favour of the Petitioner.

7. For which, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is to be allowed in part.

8. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed in part.

9. The B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) is directed to take the required steps i.e. the steps subsequent to the enrollment of name under PMAY scheme for the sanction of a house in favour of the Petitioner in that PMAY Scheme as per its guidelines as expeditiously as possible giving priority to the same on filing of the copy of the certified copy of this judgment before the O.P. No.3.

10. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top