JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J - The petitioners, claiming to be poor villagers of Patunia and Hamjapur under Patunia Gram Panchayat, have filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to sanction house building assistance, as declared by the State Government for the flood affected victims of 2014, in their favour. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that due to high flood in the year 2014, the houses of the petitioners were damaged by the tide of river Sanagenguti, the branch river of Mahanadi. The Government declared house building assistance to the victims of the flood affected areas. Consequently, the Revenue Inspector, Salipur conducted inquiry in the villages of the petitioners by taking photo snaps of retched houses. Though such assistance was given to some of their co-villagers, the petitioners were deprived of. As the petitioners were seriously affected and were victims of such high tide of the river, on 07.11.2014 they approached the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, but he, even though assured, did not consider their grievance. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Collector, Jajpur on 08.12.2014 ventilating their grievance. Since no action was taken on the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application. 3. Mr. Srinath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that though the petitioners were seriously affected due to high tide of the flood of the year 2014 and they are entitled to get the house building assistance, as per the provisions contained in Orissa Relief Code, the same has not been granted to them, although similarly situated persons have already been granted the benefit, for which the petitioners have been grossly prejudiced. 4. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that as per the guidelines of Government of Orissa, house enumeration work had been conducted by the local Revenue Inspector and enumeration register was also prepared and duly checked up by the supervising authority with regard to the damages caused due to flood water of river Sanagenguti during the last flood in the year 2014. Accordingly, the house building assistance was sanctioned and disbursed to the flood victims. Since the petitioners name did not find place in the enumeration register, they could not get house building assistance under the provisions of the Orissa Relief Code. As such, the petitioners cannot get such benefit by means of this writ petition, since it involves disputed questions of fact. 5. Since the petitioners name did not find place in the enumeration register, they could not get house building assistance under the provisions of the Orissa Relief Code. As such, the petitioners cannot get such benefit by means of this writ petition, since it involves disputed questions of fact. 5. We have heard Mr. Srinath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. It is no doubt true that due to high flood caused in the year 2014 by the tide of river Sanagenguti, certain damages had been caused to Patunia, Radhadeipur, Hamjapur villages under Patunia Gram Panchayat. The Revenue Inspector of Salipur, as per the guidelines of Government of Orissa, conducted the house enumerated work and prepared enumeration register, which was duly checked by the supervising authority. Accordingly, the house building assistance was sanctioned and disbursed to the flood victims. As names of the petitioners did not find place in the said enumerated register prepared by the Revenue Inspector, who caused inquiry, they were not eligible to get the house building assistance as provided under the Orissa Relief Code. 7. Rule-81 of Orissa Relief Code, which provides for house building grant, reads thus:- "81. House Building Grant. (1) On receipt of the preliminary flood damage report from the Collector, the Board of Revenue/Special Relief Commissioner shall take steps for allotment of funds for payment of house building grant to the eligible persons. The scale of house building grant to be sanctioned in respect of houses of people damaged due to flood, cyclone or heavy rainfall for repair or reconstruction of their houses is as follows :- (i) For completely washed away houses Per family (maximum aid) Rs. 3500 (ii) For completely collapsed houses per family (maximum aid) Rs.2000 (iii) For partially collapsed houses per family (maximum aid) Rs. 1000 Explanation (i) Houses which have been completely washed away from their original sites leaving behind no building materials shall be treated as "completely washed away". (ii) A house may be treated as fully collapsed if all the four walls and the roof have collapsed. 1000 Explanation (i) Houses which have been completely washed away from their original sites leaving behind no building materials shall be treated as "completely washed away". (ii) A house may be treated as fully collapsed if all the four walls and the roof have collapsed. (iii) A partially collapsed house is one in which one or more walls might have collapsed but the roof may still be standing on pillars or some of, the walls with or without damage to the roof. During cyclone it is possible that only the roof is completely blown off leaving all or some of the pillars intact, in such a case the house will be treated as partially collapsed. (I) Amended vide Gov/Revenue & Excise Deptt. Resolution No. 52854/R dated 24.11.1995. (2) Substituted vide Govt. in R/E Deptt. L No. 74816/R dated 12.11.1980 (2) The Collector shall ensure a careful assessment of the completely washed away 'completely collapsed' and 'partially collapsed' houses and ensure preparation of such lists in respect of every village. The list shall be approved by the Collector. (3) House building grant may be sanctioned by the Collector and the Sub-Collector. Any other gazette officers serving under the Revenue administration may sanction and distribute such grants if he is specially authorized by the Collector in this behalf. At the time of necessity, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue/Special Relief Commissioner shall be competent to authorize any gazetted officer to sanction and disburse house building grants. (4) In the matter of payment of house building grant priority should be given to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, landless labourers, marginal farmers and small farmers in this order. (5) House building grant shall not be denied to encroacher on Government land whose houses have sustained damage in accordance with the scale of assistance prescribed in Subparagraph(1) but as far as possible they may be asked to shift to unobjectionable sites, if such sites are available." In terms of the provisions of Rule-81, as enumerated above, and in obedience to order dated 18.03.2015 of the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, on 19.03.2014, a joint inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Salipur, Revenue Supervisor, Salipur and Addl. Tahasildar, Salipur on the petition filed by Kartik Chandra Barik (petitioner no.1) and others with regard to house damage caused due to last flood in the year 2014. Tahasildar, Salipur on the petition filed by Kartik Chandra Barik (petitioner no.1) and others with regard to house damage caused due to last flood in the year 2014. Radhadeipur, Patunia and Hamjapur villages were enumerated by the then Revenue Inspector, Salipur, soon after the flood in the year 2014. The names of petitioners were not included in the enumerated list, as their residential houses were found to be not affected during the said flood. So far as petitioner no.1-Kartik Chandra Barik is concerned, the observation in the joint inquiry report was as follows:- Sl. No. Name of the Petitioner Village Observation of Inquiry 1. Kartik Ch. Barik, S/o.- Dhusasan Patunia It is ascertained from the local inquiry that the petitioner Kartik Ch. Barik of village Patunia is claiming the HBA over the plot no. 1131/1330 of Khata No. 216 Mouza Patunia which stands recorded in the name of Batakrushna Rout, Krushna Ch. Rout, S/o.- Baidyanath Rout of village Patunia. During inquiry Sri Rout has stated that Sri Kartik Ch. Barik had taken shelter at the time of flood 2014. He has no right over the said plot. Further it is also ascertained that Sri Barik having pucca RCC house constructed over the plot 1118 Khata No. 325 of Mouza Patunia stands recorded in the name of Kartik Ch. Barik & his brother Kalandi Barik residing over this plot. The copy of ROR & an affidavit produced by Sri Rout is enclosed for kind consideration. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, whose name also finds place at serial no.18 of the report, the observation was as follows:- Sl. No. Name of the Petitioner Village Observation of Inquiry 18. Basantilata Malik, W/o.- Babaji Hamjapur It is found that the residence house of the petitioner is pucca (IAY) and it was not affected during the flood. Petitioner is claiming house damage showing kitchen houses having no wall. They are using the shed for cooking purpose. Not affected by flood. The above inquiry report has also been annexed as Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit dated 26.03.2015 filed by opposite parties no.2 and 3. Though rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the said counter affidavit, nothing has been stated in rebuttal with regard to the inquiry report submitted by the authority concerned indicating the ineligibility of the petitioners to get the benefit of house building assistance. 8. Though rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the said counter affidavit, nothing has been stated in rebuttal with regard to the inquiry report submitted by the authority concerned indicating the ineligibility of the petitioners to get the benefit of house building assistance. 8. On perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners have not made out a case in their favour with regard to entitlement under Rule-81 of Orissa Relief Code, which provides for house building grant. Though reference has been made to the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 460 , after going through the same, this Court finds that the said case has been decided on its own facts and circumstances, which has no application to the present case, particularly when the petitioners' name do not find place in the enumerated list prepared by the authority. As such, the findings in the inquiry report, as have been extracted above, clearly indicate that petitioner no.1 is having a pucca RCC house constructed over plot no.1118, Khata no.325 of MouzaPatunia and he, as well as his brother, is residing therein. No pleadings whatsoever are available in the writ petition with regard to damage of the houses of the petitioners and their corresponding plot and khata numbers. 9. In Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, (2011) AIR(Supreme Court) 1127, after placing reliance on various judgments including Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, (1953) AIR(Supreme Court) 235; Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) AIR(Supreme Court) 665; Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector, (2005) AIR(Supreme Court) 3165; and State of Maharastra v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., (2010) AIR(Supreme Court) 1299, the apex Court held that relief not founded on the pleadings cannot be granted. 10. For the foregoing reasons, in absence of any pleadings in the writ petition to establish the claim of the petitioners, and in view of the disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed