Prafulla Nath and 23 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENT BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM PANJABARI JURIRPAR GUWAHATI-37. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON P.O AND DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105. 5:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA MORIGAON DISTRICT P.O AND DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105. 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAHORIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O- LAHORIGHAT DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782127. 7:THE PRESIDENT TULSHIBORI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O- TENGAGURI P.S-BHELOGURI DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782127. 8:THE SECRETARY TULSHIBORI GAON PANCHAYAT

¶123

Page No.# 8/12

¶124

P.O TENGAGURI P.S BHELOGURI DIST MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78212

¶125

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, H A AHMED

¶126

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. S PHUKAN(r-7),P. BORAH (r-7),MR. P HAZARIKA (r-7),SC, P AND R.D.,DY.S.G.I.

¶127

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶128

ORDER

¶129

05.03.2025

¶130

Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 & 8; and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶131

The petitioners, twenty-four in nos., have preferred the writ petition stating that they have a common cause of action. The petitioners have stated that they are inhabitants of Village – Mikirgaon and Village – Tulshibori under Tulshibori Gaon Panchayat, District – Morigaon, Assam.

¶132

It is the case of the petitioners that they are eligible to receive the benefits of affordable housing under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana - Gramin [PMAY-G] Scheme launched by the Central Government. The petitioners have further stated that they belong to economically marginal section and accordingly, their names have been included in the Socio Economic Caste Census [SECC], 2011. The respondent authorities in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Government of Assam had initiated a process for implementation of the PMAY-G Scheme for identification of the beneficiaries as per the SECC data and after

¶133

Page No.# 9/12

¶134

making a survey as regards the probable beneficiaries within the territorial areas of Tulshibori Gaon Panchayat, the respondent authorities had prepared a list of probable beneficiaries, who are inhabitants of Village - Mikirgaon and Village - Tulshibori under Tulshibori Gaon Panchayat. In the said list of beneficiaries, the names of the petitioners, except the petitioner nos. 17, 18 & 23, had figured. When the petitioners were awaiting to receive the benefits under the PMAY-G Scheme, they came to learn, to their surprise, that they were not being provided with any benefits by the respondent authorities.

¶135

With such projections, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondent authorities to issue sanction orders in respect of the petitioners for PMAY-G houses and to release the funds in terms of the beneficiaries list prepared for PMAY-G houses in respect of Village – Mikirgaon and Village - Tulshibori under Tulshibori Gaon Panchayat, Lahorighat Development Block, District – Morigaon.

¶136

An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that an enquiry was caused when anomalies were allegedly found committed in respect of the extension of benefits and in selection of beneficiaries under the PMAY-G Scheme in Tulshibori Gaon Panchayat, Lahorighat Development Block. During the enquiry, it came to light that misappropriation in respect of a Government funds meant for PMAY-G beneficiaries in Tulshibori Gaon Panchayat had occurred. It was further found during the investigation that the job cards were wrongly mapped against ID members of a number of PMAY beneficiaries, which included few of the petitioners herein, for which, the benefits were not received by those petitioners. In view of such misappropriation of Government fund, a number of Government officials involved in the matter of misappropriation and wrong mapping of job cards have already been suspended and disciplinary actions are being taken against them.

¶137

The prime concern of the petitioners herein is non-receipt of the benefits under the PMAY-G Scheme, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶138

Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department has

¶139

Page No.# 10/12

¶140

submitted that the earlier version of the PMAY-G Scheme has come to an end in the meantime. But, a next phase of the PMAY-G Scheme has been envisaged and made operational with certain modifications. The next phase of PMAY-G Scheme would be carried during the period : Financial Year : 2024 – 2025 to Financial Year : 2028-2029. The Central Government, on 09.08.2024, has approved the implementation of the PMAY-G Scheme for five more years for two crore more houses. In support of his such submission, Mr. Dutta has placed a copy of an Office Letter bearing no. LDB/425/MGNREGA/2021-22/1764 dated 01.03.2025, received by him from the respondent no. 6, annexing therewith a copy of a Letter no. J-11014/1/2024-RH-Pol. [e-387579] dated 14^th August, 2024 of the Ministry of Rural Development Department, Government of India.

¶141

From the Letter dated 14^th August, 2024, it is noticed that the Central Government has approved for continuation of the PMAY-G Scheme for five more years for the period : Financial Year : 2024-2025 to the Financial Year : 2028-2029, with target for construction of two crore more houses. The beneficiaries would be the balance households in the existing SECC 2011. As per the Letter dated 14^th August, 2024, there will be an exercise for updating the list in the following manner :-

¶142

II. Conduct of exercise for updating the Awass+, 2019 list for identifying eligible rural households for getting benefits under the scheme. The updation exercise would be done using the modified exclusion process with revised 10 exclusion criteria. The Minstry would request the States/UTs for starting the survey shortly. The modified exclusion criteria w.e.f. FY 2024-25 for identification of additional potential beneficiaries are given as under [also modified in the Annexure-I of the existing FFI of the PMAY-G] :-

¶143

i. Motorised three/four-wheeler;

¶144

ii. Mechanised three/four-wheeler agricultural equipment;

¶145

iii. Kisan Credit Card with credit limit of Rs. 50,000 or above;

¶146

iv. Households with any member as a Government employee;

¶147

v. Households with non-agricultural enterprises registered with the Government;

¶148

Page No.# 11/12

¶149

vi. Any member of the family earning more than Rs. 15,000 per month;

¶150

vii. Paying income tax;

¶151

viii. Paying professional tax;

¶152

ix. Own 2.5 acres or more of irrigated land;

¶153

x. Own 5 acres of more of unirrigated land;

¶154

III. In addition, the scheme would ensure the priority for first time beneficiary households during FY 2024-25 to 2029-29.

¶155

As the petitioners are deprived from getting the benefits in the earlier phase of PMAYG Scheme despite the fact that their names had figured in the list of probable beneficiaries and the earlier phase of the PMAY-G Scheme has since come to an end, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, it can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department to consider the cases of these petitioners in the next phase of the PMAY-G Scheme for extension of benefits in terms of the criteria set forth in the Letter dated 14.08.2024 of the Ministry of Rural Development Department, Government of India within a stipulated period of time and to bring the process to logical conclusion within a period of 4 [four] months from the date of submission of a copy of this order at the office of the respondent no. 3 by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the writ petition be disposed of in that line. The learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department has submitted that a period of four months would be reasonable.

¶156

In view of the broad consensus arrived at, in the afore-stated manner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6, to consider the cases of these petitioners for extension of benefits under the next phase of PMAY-G Scheme. While considering the cases of the petitioners, the respondent authorities shall ensure that the cases of the petitioners are considered against the AADHAAR card and job-cards already

¶157

Page No.# 12/12

¶158

issued in the name of the petitioners, to avoid any foul-play.

¶159

This order disposes of the writ petition.

¶160

A copy of this order is to be supplied to Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for taking necessary steps from his end.

¶161

JUDGE

¶162

Comparing Assistant

Prafulla Nath and 23 Ors. v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Prafulla Nath and 23 Ors. v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyotirindra Roychowdhury Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

International Engineering Construction and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gobinda Chandra Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department and Anr. Vs Rushan Ahmed Barbhuiya and 22 Ors.

Mainu Gohain Mahato Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mazaharul Sultan Vs the State of Assam and Ors.