Order Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that land acquisition in question was made in the year 1988-89 but the process of rehabilitation continued after the actual possession of the lands was taken in the year 2005 and in the meantime, new rehabilitation policy was made in 2003. In the meantime, the petitioners have attained the age of 18 years and therefore they are entitled to separate piece of land either 25 decimals as per old policy or 15 decimals as per new policy of 2003. He referred to the letter no. 13 Barhi dated 4.2.2009 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Division Barhi, written to the Superintending Engineer, in which he sought guidelines on the said claims of the petitioners. He further submitted that some more families were added, in the list of displaced persons originally assessed. 2. Mr. Purnendu Sharan, learned counsel for the State, referring to the counter affidavit and the Rehabilitation Policy, submitted that the land loser who had attained 18 years of age on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1988-89, were entitled to separate piece of land but as the petitioners did not attain 18 years at that time, they are not entitled to separate land then what has been given to their family. He referred to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- "9. That with regard to the statement made in para 3(iii) it is stated and submitted that the kids at the time of notification under Section• 4 of Land Acquisition Act cannot complain for rehabilitation benefits, which were provided to their parents in the light of Rehabilitation Policy, 2003. 10. That with regard to the statement made in para 3(iv) it is stated that the compensation against the land acquired has already been paid alongwith the displacement benefits, hence the action of the department not to rehabilitate the petitioners is fully justified." He further submitted that on the basis of the said letter dated 4.2.2009 it cannot be said that the claim of the petitioners was accepted, rather a clarification was sought whether the age of 18 years should be counted taking into account 1988-89 or 2006. 3. 3. The said statements made in the counter affidavit, a copy of which was served on the counsel for the petitioners on 4.11.2010, has not been denied and disputed. It appears from Clause 3.2 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2003 that the 'family' includes displaced person and his/her spouse, minor son and daughter, minor brother/sister, mother, father and other family members who reside with him and are dependent on him. Clause 3.2 Kha provided that every adult boy will be treated as separate family. But in Clause 3.2 Gha it is provided that a person who had attained 18 years of age on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act will be treated as adult for the purpose of the Rehabilitation Scheme. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the parents of the petitioners were given the benefit under the Rehabilitation Policy of 2003. There is nothing to show that the persons who attained the age of 18 years after the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act are also entitled to the benefits under the Policy independent of their family which has already received the benefits of the Rehabilitation Policy, nor there is anything to show that such' persons/families, like the petitioners, were added/included in the original list of displaced persons. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.