Sabitri Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.1204 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Sabitri Bhoi … Petitioner -VERSUS- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties

¶4

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S.Pradhan, Advocate

¶6

For the Opposite Parties :Mr. G.Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

¶7

P R E S E N T:

¶8

HONOURABLE

¶9

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶10

Page 1 of 5

¶11

Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 12.02.2026

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶14

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 the Petitioner, as the Petitioner is entitled to get the same fulfilling all the criterias of that scheme.

¶15

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that, though, she (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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

3. The B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) has

¶19

submitted its counter stating in Para No.7 that,

¶20

“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, but, she has not done e- kyc in the Adhar Card and also she has not any mobile number, for which, it was not possible to apply for R.H. survey and she has been intimated to do the same before 31^st March, 2025 so as to enable her to enroll herself in the inclusion list for Rural Housing Scheme. After completion of survey by 31^st March, 2025, an enquiry will be conducted. If the Petitioner is found eligible in the enquiry, she will be benefitted under the scheme”.

¶21

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

¶22

learned standing counsel for the State.

¶23

5. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he (Petitioner) has already submitted all the documents, those were required as per Para No.7 in the counter-affidavit of the O.P. No.3, but, still then, the O.P. No.3 is not considering the application of the Petitioner for the sanction of a house under PMAY Scheme.

¶24

The learned Standing counsel for the State objected to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

Petitioner contending that, due to the non-submission of the above required documents, the name of the Petitioner has not been enrolled under such scheme in order to process the same for the sanction of a house under such scheme in favour of the Petitioner.

¶27

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 (O.P. No.3) that, only due to non-filing of the above required documents indicated in Para No.7 of the counter of the O.P. No.3, the name of the Petitioner has not been enrolled under the said PMAY scheme and when, the Petitioner is a lady, then at this juncture, the ends of justice shall bestly be served, if this writ petition filed by the Petitioner will be disposed of finally directing the Petitioner to submit the required documents indicated in Para No.7 of the counter of the O.P. No.3 for enrollment of the name of the Petitioner under PMAY Scheme and to take step for sanctioning a house in her favour under PMAY Scheme.

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

9. The Petitioner is directed to submit the required documents indicated in Para No.7 of the counter of the O.P. No.3 within seven days before the B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) annexing the copy of the certified copy of this judgment and in case of submission of the said documents by the Petitioner before the O.P. No.3, the O.P. No.3 (B.D.O., Kantapada, Cuttack) shall accept the same and shall enroll her name under PMAY Scheme and shall process the same for the sanction of a house under such scheme as per the guidelines of that scheme in favour of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible giving priority to the same.

¶32

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

¶33

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO 12 .02.2026// Binayak Sahoo Reason: Authentication Jr. Stenographer Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 17-Feb-2026 10:58:22

¶36

Page 5 of 5

Sabitri Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabitri Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tapaswini Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Pratap Kumar Rout Vs Sudhanshu Sekhar Sao,Oas

Nandakishore Agrawal Vs Sanjay Kumar Sahoo,Addl.Tahasildar,Sambalpur

Parameswar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Dhaneswar Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Rita Bhoi Vs State of Odisha