JUDGMENT : An extent of Ac.31.30 guntas of land in Survey Nos.204 to 211 of Khajaguda Village was notified for acquisition, for the purpose of International Airport at Shamshabad, through a notification, dated 29.04.2004, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') by the 3rd respondent. The grand mother of the petitioner, by name Kulsum Begum, was shown as the owner. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on 14.05.2004. An errata was published on 29.04.2004. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (Court of Wards), 2nd respondent herein, was added as a person interested. Award enquiry was conducted and ultimately, the 1st respondent passed an award, dated 08.12.2005. Apart from private individuals, such as Mohd Sirajuddin Khan, Smt. Yousufunissa Begum, Asifunnisa Begum, 2nd respondent also submitted claim statements. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it was pleaded that the acquired land was notified under Section 13 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli (for short 'the Wards Act'). In the award, dated 08.12.2005, the 1st respondent directed that the amount be deposited with the 2nd respondent, subject to the claims of various individuals. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the award. She contends that even assuming that there is any rival claim on behalf of various persons, including the 2nd respondent, the only course open to the 1st respondent was to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that the land in question was brought under the administration of the 2nd respondent, through a notification, dated 29.01.1961 under Section 13 of the Wards Act. It is pleaded that once the land was under the administration of the 2nd respondent, the compensation derived out of it shall also be subjected to the same arrangement and any claims have to be determined in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is also pleaded that the Court, to which, reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act can be made, does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the claims in respect of the lands brought under the control of Court of Wards. Heard Sri M.A. Bari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Heard Sri M.A. Bari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. There is no dispute that the land was notified for acquisition for the purpose of Airport. The petitioner laid claim for compensation as one of the legal heirs of the notified owners. Certain other claims were also submitted before the 1st respondent. Had it been a case, where the land was not subjected to administration by any Agency or Authority, and the claim was made by private individuals, the only alternative for the 1st respondent would have been to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act. In the instant case, undisputedly the land was brought under the purview of the Court of Wards, 2nd respondent herein, through notification, dated 29.01.1961, published under Section 13 of the Wards Act. With that, the land becomes the subject matter of administration and no individual can claim absolute or partial rights vis-à-vis such land. A person, who is recognized as Ward, can only claim benefit for maintenance etc., as provided for under the Wards Act. The occasion for the 1st respondent to refer the claim of the petitioner and others to a Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act would have arisen, if only the land was taken away from the purview of the 2nd respondent. As long as such a step is not taken, neither the petitioner nor any other individual can claim absolute rights for the acquired land in its entirety or part. Further, the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as a rival claimant, so that he can be made to defend himself in a reference under Section 30 of the Act. There cannot be any rival claim between a Ward, the one hand, and the administrator, on the other. If the petitioner is so advised, she has to work out her remedies vis-à-vis the 2nd respondent, and thereafter, lay claim for compensation, that was awarded for the land, including rights under the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to workout her remedies vis-à-vis the notification, dated 29.01.1961, issued under Section 13 of the Wards Act, in respect of the acquired land, and to pursue other remedies available to her in law. There shall be no order as to costs.