Judgment This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 17-10-2012, in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2-20 guntas in Survey No.186 of Ladnapur Village, Mutharam Mandal (Manthani), Karimnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Mr. Venkateshwar Varanasi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondent No.1. In the view this Court is proposing to take, notice to the private respondents is not necessary. The petitioner claims to have purchased the abovementioned land from respondent No.8. It is his pleaded case that he and his wife sold away a substantial part of the abovementioned land to the third parties retaining the land to an extent of Ac.0-08 guntas. The entire property was proposed for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), for the benefit of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. When the petitioner came to know that respondent No.8 is claiming compensation in respect of his Ac.0-08 guntas of land, he has filed a petition on 17-10-2012 under Section 30 of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) with a request to respondent No.1 either to conduct survey or to refer the dispute to the competent Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has not, so far, responded to his request. On apprehension that respondent No.1 may pass award in favour of respondent No.8, he has filed this Writ Petition. Under Section 9 (1) and (3) of the Act, a public notice and individual notices respectively have to be given by the Collector inviting claims for payment of compensation from all the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired. The petition stated to have been filed by the petitioner is, therefore, traceable to the said provision. Once the objections are received by the Collector, he has to consider the same in the award proceedings. If the Collector decides the said dispute and passes award, the aggrieved party is entitled to seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. However, if the Collector finds that there is a dispute as to the persons, who are entitled to receive compensation or the apportionment thereof, he is bound to refer the same to the civil Court for its adjudication. However, if the Collector finds that there is a dispute as to the persons, who are entitled to receive compensation or the apportionment thereof, he is bound to refer the same to the civil Court for its adjudication. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner so far respondent No.1 has not passed any award. If that be so, respondent No.1 shall consider the petitioner’s objections, and, on the basis of the material placed before him, if is satisfied that one among the petitioner and respondent No.2 is entitled to receive compensation, he shall pass an award and communicate the same to the petitioner. On the contrary, if he entertains a serious dispute as to the person, who is entitled to receive compensation, he shall then refer the dispute to the competent Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the award that may be passed by respondent No.1. he shall be free to seek a reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within the time stipulated therein. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.45258 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.