JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda by which the petitioners objection under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioners is that a Title (Partition) Suit, alongwith a prayer to set aside some of the sale deeds in favour of respondent no. 6, had been filed before the Subordinate Judge, Nalanda. It is also the case of the petitioners that an injunction petition had been filed for restraining the State authorities from paying the award amount to respondent no. 6. The case of the respondent no. 6, on the other hand, is that he is the valid purchaser of the lands in question from the heirs of Dhaka Mahto and from Pachu Mahto. 3. The objection application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer has directed that the award should be prepared in favour of respondent no. 6. The order impugned indicates that the objection has been filed under Section 9 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act would be relevant for this purpose. S ction 30 of the Act envisages that after the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, and if there is any dispute with respect to apportionment of the same or any part thereof, the person so aggrieved may file an application before the Collector for reference to the Court. 4. The petitioners are, therefore, given liberty to file an application u/s 30 of the Act after declaration under Section 11(1) of the Act is made. In case, an application is filed by the petitioners under Section 30 of the Act, the Collector is bound to refer it for a decision to the Civil Court as there is obviously a dispute of title with respect to the lands in question. The question of payment of the remaining amount of compensation would be subject to the result in the reference case. 5. Although, the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioners regarding their claim of title, this Court finds that such an order cannot be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector. The question of payment of the remaining amount of compensation would be subject to the result in the reference case. 5. Although, the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioners regarding their claim of title, this Court finds that such an order cannot be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector. This aspect of the matter has to be decided by the Civil Court and, therefore, any findings with respect to the declaration or rejection of the title of any of the parties would obviously not being binding in any other proceedings. 6. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.