IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13190 of 2010 Between: M.Susheel Kumar … Petitioner And The General Manager and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13190 of 2010 ORDER:- 1. M.Susheel Kumar, represented by his natural guardian M.Jagadishwar is the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner sought for admission in DAV/BDL Publi School, BDL Town ship Bhanur village –2nd respondent. The father of the petitioner owned 25 guntas in Bhanur Village of Patanchervu Mandal. It was acquired by the BDL. Apart from payment of compensation, the owners of the land were provided with certain benefits such as employment subject to eligibility and admission into school established by the organisation at concessional rate of fee. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his father is not recognised as Land Displaced Person. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel received notice on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the W.P.No.15549 of 2009. M.Rishitha, who is the sister of the petitioner herein, assailed the action of the 2nd respondent for not giving admission on concession rates of fee in W.P.No.15549 of 2009. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 09.12.2009. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order, which reads as under: “The claim made by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that her father was not recognized as LDP. However, if one goes by the averments in the counter affidavit itself, it emerges that in the course of award enquiry, the claim of the father of the petitioner was accepted in respect of 20 guntas of land and payment was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit.” 3. Since the petitioner in the writ petition is the brother of Ms.M.Rishitha, the petitioner deserves the same benefit. 4. Hence, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage directing the respondents to extend the benefit under clause II of the memorandum of understanding to the petitioner. There shall no order as to costs. _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 15th June 2010 lmv