KARMI GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Jagannath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of repeated requests, Vikas Pustika has not been issued to her. Learned state counsel submitted that in the absence of counter affidavit, he is not in a position to accept or controvert the submissions made by the petitioner.

(2.) In the circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation addressed to respondent no. 2 - The Rehabilitation Officer No. 1, Subernrekha Project, Adityapur, Saraikella-Kharsawan, respondent no. 3 - The Additional Director Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Subernrekha Project Bhawan, Saraikella-Kharsawan and respondent no. 4- The D. C., Saraikella-Kharsawan in that regard.

(3.) If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to Vikas Pustika, it should be issued to her. However, it it is found that she is not entitled to that, the reasons thereof should be communicated to her. This exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.