Sanjulata Sahu And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2820 Ori

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.4346 of 2023
                            (Through hybrid mode)

 Sanjulata Sahu and others                          ....               Petitioners

                                     -versus-

  State of Odisha and others                        ....        Opposite Parties



 Advocates appeared in this case:

 For Petitioners:         Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate

 For State:               Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA



              CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                      JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and Judgment: 05.04.2023

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Petitioners names stand deleted from beneficiary list under the

housing scheme. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on their behalf and

on earlier occasion had submitted, identification and selection of

beneficiaries procedure stands given in the scheme. It is a Central

scheme and annexure-1 in the writ petition is the Framework for

Implementation, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin prescribing the

procedure. He had referred to clause 4.4 in the frame work, dealing with

verification of priority lists. Clause 4.4.1 is reproduced below.

// 2 //

"4.4.1 Once the category wise system generated priority lists are made available and suitably publicized, a Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, will be convened. The Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, will verify the facts based on which the household has been identified as eligible. If the inclusion has been done based on wrong facts or if the household has constructed a pucca house or has been allotted a house under any government scheme or has permanently migrated since the time of the survey or has died leaving no successor, the Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, shall delete the name of such household from the system generated priority list. The list of deleted households, including reasons for deletion, will form part of the minutes of the Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act."

(emphasis supplied)

He had submitted, in the counter there is reliance on circular dated 15th

January, 2023 for allegedly filtering out names of petitioners under

step-1 of 'exclusion process'. This was on basis of purported enquiry by

teams comprising of employees in the Panchayat Samiti office, resulting

in deletion of his clients' names, on allegation that they possess pucca

// 3 //

houses.

2. Today he lays emphasis on clause 4.4.1 for its scope and effect.

He submits the verification is to be done by Gram Sabha/village Sabha

or the lowest unit of self Government as recognized by the respective

State/UT Panchayat Act, convened for the purpose. The procedure does

not admit of the administration appointing an inquiry team of employees

from the Panchayat Samiti office, to cause enquiry.

3. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State. He draws attention to office order

dated 28th May, 2021, issued by the Block Development Officer (BDO).

He submits, the order says that as per instructions of the Project

Director, teams mentioned in the order were constituted to verify

eligibility of the persons named in the system generated priority list for

sanction of house under PMAY-G for year 2021-2022. The persons

constituting the teams are all government employees. They had

instructions to diligently cause the verification and any lapse or error

would invite strict disciplinary action. He hands up circular dated 15th

July, 2021 issued by the Principal Secretary and relies upon last

paragraph in it, reproduced below.

"It will be the personal responsibility of PD, DRDA and BDO concerned to ensure correctness of the above lists. Any wrong or incorrect entry will be viewed very

// 4 //

seriously and invite strong disciplinary action against the officer concerned."

He submits further, the Gram Sabha by their resolution no.5 in their

meeting held on 2nd October, 2022 approved the enquiry report

appended to said order dated 28th May, 2021. He hands up the

resolution.

4. Mr. Rath in reply submits, when his clients had objected to

purported enquiry resulting in allegation that they possess pucca house,

there was disclosure of said office order dated 28th May, 2021 and the

list of persons deleted. Now, from the Bar, there is reliance on resolution

no.5 taken in Gram Sabha meeting held more than one year later on 2nd

October, 2022. Resolution no.5 does not specifically refer to the list

under said office order dated 28th May, 2021. He submits, his clients

have stated in the rejoinder that they do not possess pucca house. The

administration is purporting to create a dispute of fact so that

adjudication can be prevented.

5. Plain reading of clause 4.4.1 reveals that a Gram Sabha/village

sabha or lowest unit of recognized local self government is to be

convened for verifying the facts, based on which the household has been

identified as eligible. The procedure does not call for verification by

fresh enquiry. It appears, by said office order dated 28th May, 2021 the

administration constituted enquiry team for verification. The enquiry

// 5 //

team submitted report, disclosed following said office order, in the

counter. The report does not bear a date. The report was introduced by

paragraph-6 in the counter. There too no date has been given in respect

of the report.

6. On behalf of State there has been handed up, inter alia, minutes

of meeting of the Gram Sabha held on 2nd October, 2022. Contention is,

by resolution no.5 there was approval of the enquiry made by employees

of the Panchayat Samiti, regarding verification of those listed as

beneficiaries under the housing scheme.

7. Implementation of the scheme under the particular clause 4.4.1

requires the Gram Sabha/village Sabha or the lowest recognized unit of

local self government to verify the facts, on which the household has

been identified as eligible. Contingencies provided in the clause are also

regarding households having constructed pucca house or having been

allotted a house under any government scheme, amongst other situations

of migration, death etc. The undated report has a column for stating

reason of ineligibility and against petitioners and others reason given is

'pucca house'.

8. The procedural clause clearly required the mentioned

democratically elected units to have caused verification of the facts, on

which original list was made. In this case, verification was done on

subsequent enquiry by employees of the Panchayat Samiti. The Gram

// 6 //

Sabha/village Sabha or concerned lowest recognized unit of local self

government did not itself either verify the facts, on which the list was

prepared nor undertook subsequent enquiry for verification. Contention

of petitioner is that more than one year after issuance of said office order

dated 28th May, 2021 and enquiry report, the latter stood approved by

the Gram Sabha on 2nd October, 2022. Mr. Sharma submits, Gram Sabha

is convened on Gandhi Jayanti and that was the pandemic period, which

caused the delay.

9. Documents relied upon by State at the Bar were not disclosed

in the counter. Accompanying submissions have also been made from

the Bar. What becomes clear is that the Gram Sabha completely

abdicated its duty to cause the verification. Instead the administration

took upon itself to constitute enquiry team comprising government

employees, to verify. The task was enjoined upon the elected local self

government unit. In the circumstances, petitioners grievance must be

addressed.

10. The Sarapanch, Buhalipala Gram Panchayat is added as

opposite party no.4. Petitioners have liberty to effect the amendment in

the cause title, in Court, to be counter signed by Court Master. Added

opposite party will undertake exercise of verification of the beneficiary

list forthwith, in accordance with clause 4.4 given in the frame work for

implementation of the scheme. Result of the verification is to be made

// 7 //

known to petitioners within three weeks of communication. Mr. Sharma

submits, the direction be confined to petitioners. Court accepts the

submission and directs accordingly.

11. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks