RABEHA KHATUN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Addl.Government Advocate states that the Tahasildar, Chatrapur (Opposite Party No. 2) has not responded to the intimation issued to appear and file counter affidavit. From the submission, we do not find any reason to further adjourn the case when the opposite party members do not pray for adjournment.

(2.) THE writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

(3.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that though the Tahasildar, Chhatrapur recommended for settlement of Ac. 0.020 cents of land out of Plot No. 496 from Rakhita Khata No. 279 in Mouza Chanakhyapur (in Chhatrapur town) yet it was erroneously and arbitrarily turned down by opposite party Nos.3 to 5. In that respect petitioner claims that she has been abandoned by her husband, she is a homesteadless person and therefore she comes within the categories of persons who can be settled with homestead land. In that respect she banks upon the favourable report and recommendation of the opposite party No. 2. She also states that refusal of settlement on the ground that the case land is part of 'Rakhit Khata' is not legal in as much as out of 'Rakhit Khata' plot Nos 74/36, 271/7, 271/6, vide Khata No. 436/937, Khata No. 496/613, and 496/612 respectively have been settled with encroachers like Gopinath Mallik, Kas.inath Das and Dinabandhu Panigrahi.