THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17900 of 2009 Date: 08.12.2009 Between: C.H. Vandhana and another. ..Petitioners and The General Manager and another. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17900 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are minors and are represented by their mother. They challenge the action of the respondents in not extending the concessions and facilities in DAV/BDL Public School, BDL Township, Bhanur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. Bharath Dynamics Limited (for short ‘BDL’) was established at Bhanur Village two decades ago, for which vast extent of land had been acquired. In addition to arranging the compensation for the land, the Government provided for certain other facilities also, such as employment to the land displaced persons (LDP) and admission of their children into BDL School on par with the employees of BDL etc. The petitioners contend that their grandfather by name Rajagowni Narayana was pattadar of Acs.2.00 in survey No.292 and the same was acquired for BDL. According to the mother of the petitioners, who filed the affidavit, though her father Narayana requested the authorities concerned to include her name as LDP, the same was not acceded to. However, it is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru, requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy, to include her name in the list of LPDs. In memorandum of understanding dated 01.01.1991, one of the points for agreement was that the children of LDPs will be treated on par with the children of employees of BDL. The petitioners claim that such a facility was not extended to them. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the mother of the petitioners was never recognized as LDP and that her father Narayana was extended all the benefits including payment of compensation. Across the Bar, it is stated that the married daughter cannot be included in the list of LDPs and that mere recognition of LDP does not entitle the petitioners any benefit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the person whose land was acquired is Narayana and that he was extended all the benefits. BDL has its own procedure in the context of extension of benefits. Once the original owner was paid compensation, his children that too a married daughter cannot claim further benefits. In case the mother of the petitioners was not included in the list of LDPs by the authorities concerned, she ought to have taken steps at the relevant point of time. The respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 08th December, 2009 GHN