Rita Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

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

¶22

submitted its counter stating in Para No.7 that,

¶23

“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 the Petitioner intimated that, the previous team showing the RCC House belongs to her brother-in-law and she is living in a thatched house. In view of the above, she is eligible to enroll in the survey list under the Rural Housing Scheme and accordingly her name has been included in the survey list. 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”.

¶24

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

¶25

learned standing counsel for the State.

¶26

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.

¶27

6. When it is forthcoming from the counter-affidavit submitted by the Sanctioning Authority of the house under

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶36

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 12 .02. 2026// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 17-Feb-2026 10:58:22