The right to more than a room and roof

The Odisha government has formulated guidelines to safeguard the property rights of persons with disabilities. Satyasundar Barik spoke to those impacted and to activists, who say that these guidelines were needed for both inherited and self-acquired property, and how mandates help improve lives

Published - October 05, 2026 05:44 am IST

Balunkeswar Paikray, a visually impaired resident of Kadab village in Khordha district, has spent three decades fighting to reclaim his share of inherited property. He has approached several authorities, including the Prime Minister, but says his efforts have yet to yield a resolution. | Photo Credit: Biswaranjan Rout

For 35 years, Balunkeswar Paikray has travelled hundreds of kilometres, knocked on the doors of every authority he could think of. He even reachedout to the Prime Minister of India, and, touched the feet of local government officials in the hope that someone would listen. The 55-year-old visually impaired man in Odisha’s Khordha district, says, “I am not asking for charity. I am fighting for a rightful share in my ancestral property.”

Paikray says his share among the three siblings would amount to 40,000 square feet of paternal property in Khordha’s Kadab village. “Now, I live in less than 300 square feet,” he says, of his room, bathroom, and backyard.

Paikray’s long struggle has given him a painful insight into how the world treats those who cannot see, walk, or behave in what is considered regular. His battle has revealed how a disability, whether present from birth or caused by an accident, can deepen a person’s vulnerability, strip away social standing and, in the maze of bureaucracy and family disputes, reduce an individual to almost a non-entity.

In August this year the Odisha government formulated a comprehensive set of guidelines to safeguard the property and inheritance rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. Paikray and lakhs of others saw hope.

The move has also been welcomed by those working in the disability sector, who see it as a significant step towards protecting PwDs from discrimination in matters of property, including ancestral, inherited, and self-acquired.

The three-page guidelines suggested that the Revenue and Disaster Management Department examine the feasibility of issuing comprehensive guidelines and instructions to all revenue authorities to safeguard the land and property rights of PwDs.

One of the key proposals is to maintain a register of complaints relating to the property rights of PwDs at the tehsil and Sub-Collector levels, with periodic monitoring by the District Collector. Activists pointed out that while revenue laws provide safeguards for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities — including prior permission for transfer of their land or property to persons from the general category—PwDs remain more vulnerable and require similar protection.

Safeguarding the differently-abled

In August this year, the Odisha government’s Suresh Kumar Vashishth wrote to Arabinda Kumar Padhee to issue comprehensive guidelines that would protect all PwDs’ rights over inherited and self-acquired property. Vashishth is principal secretary to the Department of Social Security and Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (SSEPD); Padhee is additional chief secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, under which property is registered.

The guidelines were formulated based on the RPwD Act, particularly Sections 12, 13, 84, and 85. These cast an obligation upon the government to ensure protection of the rights, property, legal capacity, and the interests of PwDs and to prevent all forms of abuse, violence, exploitation, and discrimination.

“Persons with disabilities are often subjected to unlawful deprivation of their paternal, ancestral and self-acquired properties due to their physical, sensory, intellectual or psychosocial disabilities,” Vashishth wrote. He also observed that numerous instances had come to the department’s notice where vulnerable PwDs were “coerced, deceived or unduly influenced into transferring their immovable properties, are unlawfully deprived of their legitimate inheritance, or their lands are wrongfully occupied, cultivated or alienated by others”. This resulted in economic exploitation and violation of constitutional and legal rights.

He suggested including the establishment of a regulatory mechanism for protection of paternal, ancestral, inherited, and self-acquired immovable properties of PwDs.