Judgment At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not considering the petitioners’ objections with regard to payment of compensation for the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents in Survey No.149/2 of Tuni Town and Mandal as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to pay compensation to them. Respondent No.1 issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire several lands including the extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Survey No.149/2 for the purpose of construction of an over bridge. In view of the urgency involved for acquisition, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. As the extent of Ac.0.30 cents was notified in the name of respondent No.4, the petitioners approached respondent No.2 with objection petitions and claiming compensation in respect of the said land. Even before respondent No.2 passed an award, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition with the above noted relief. This Court, by order, dated 19.11.2008, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim direction to respondent No.2 not to disburse the compensation either to the petitioners or to respondent No.4. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit. At the hearing, Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have committed a serious illegality in notifying the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents in the name of respondent No.4, as title is absolutely vested in his clients. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has committed dereliction of duties in not considering the objection petitions of the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, have opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that during the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.2 has passed award, dated 30.03.2010. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, have opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that during the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.2 has passed award, dated 30.03.2010. From the copy of the award filed by the petitioners along with W.P.M.P.No.20932 of 2010, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that respondent No.2 has refrained from deciding the aspect of title in view of pendency of the writ petition and while determining the amount of compensation for Ac.0.30 cents of land, he directed deposit of amounts in civil deposits. In my opinion, the writ petition is premature because even before the objections raised by the petitioners were decided by respondent No.2 while passing the award, the petitioners rushed to this Court. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Govindu Venkata Reddy v K.Krishna Rao and another AIR 1982 AP 86 , the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contains a clear-cut scheme when there are conflicting claims to the land acquired or to the compensation payable. The Land Acquisition Officer has two alternatives, namely, (1) to decide the matter by himself or (2) to refer the same to the civil Court. If he chooses to follow the first option, he has to determine the area of the land, the amount of compensation and also the persons who according to him are entitled to compensation, and pass an award incorporating his decision on these questions. If any person is aggrieved by such award, he can ask for reference under Section 18 of the Act within the period of limitation and the Land Acquisition Officer on receiving any such application is bound to make reference. In the event of the Land Acquisition Officer choosing the second option, he has to determine the area of the land, the quantum of compensation and make a suo motu reference under Section 30 of the Act to the civil court to decide the conflicting claims. Interestingly, respondent No.2 has not exercised either of the above two options. He has merely determined the quantum of compensation payable without deciding on the persons, who are entitled to receive the compensation. In such an event, he should have suo motu referred the dispute under Section 30 of the Act to the civil Court which he did not do. Interestingly, respondent No.2 has not exercised either of the above two options. He has merely determined the quantum of compensation payable without deciding on the persons, who are entitled to receive the compensation. In such an event, he should have suo motu referred the dispute under Section 30 of the Act to the civil Court which he did not do. The petitioners are obviously responsible for this situation. Evidently, respondent No.2 felt that in view of the pending writ petition, in which, an interim direction was given to him not to pay compensation to either of the two parties, it is appropriate not to take any decision even on the aspect relating to the person who is entitled to receive the compensation. Having regard to the statutory mandate referred to above, in the event of respondent No.2 not being able to adjudicate upon the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation, he is bound to refer the dispute to the competent civil Court for determination under Section 30 of the Act. In the circumstances referred to above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to refer the claims raised by the petitioners and respondent No.4 for adjudication under Section 30 of the Act to the competent civil Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.2 shall make over civil deposits to the credit of the competent civil Court while making reference which shall remain with the Court till it adjudicates the disputes to be referred by respondent No.2. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.33139 of 2008, 20932 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.4889 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous.