Judgment : This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in passing award in respect of H.No.NS-435 in Sy.No.127/1 to 9 and H.Nos.NS-437 to NS448 in an extent of Ac.2.19 cents comprised in Sy.No.127/15 and 16 of Obannapeta fields, R.S. Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District, without referring the dispute to the civil court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Mr. Venkatesh Kodumury, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 16. I have also perused the record. The above-mentioned properties along with other properties were notified for acquisition as they came under sub-mergence of Gandikota Project. The properties were notified in the names of respondents 5 to 16 (for short ‘the private respondents’). Apprehending that the Land Acquisition Officer may pass award in favour of the private respondents, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.6094 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 06.03.2012 giving liberty to the petitioners to participate in the award enquiry. This Court however made it clear that if the Land Acquisition Officer feels that there are more than one claim in respect of the land in question, he shall refer the dispute to the competent civil court under Section 30 of the Act. The petitioners have again approached this Court by way of the present writ petition with the grievance that despite the claims made by them in the award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has not referred the matter to the competent civil court under Section 30 of the Act and instead he is seeking to disburse the compensation to the private respondents. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents requested for time for instructions. Today, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the private respondents presented counter affidavit along with material papers to buttress their plea that they are entitled to receive the compensation. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents requested for time for instructions. Today, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the private respondents presented counter affidavit along with material papers to buttress their plea that they are entitled to receive the compensation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition placed before the Court a copy of the award dated 23.10.2012 passed by respondent No.3, a perusal of which would show that he has considered the evidence adduced and the documents produced by both the parties and rejected the plea of the petitioners that the property is ancestral property, while further holding that the property in question is self acquired property of the father of Bodela Siva Rami Reddy. Respondent No.3 accordingly held that all the legal heirs of Bodela Siva Rami Reddy including respondents 5 to 16 are entitled to receive compensation in proportion to their shares. When competing claims were made for payment of compensation, the Collector is left with two options, namely, either to refer the disputes to the competent civil court for adjudication or to award compensation in favour of all or any or some of the claimants. In the latter eventuality, any person interested, who has not accepted the award, may make a written application to the Collector for reference of the dispute inter alia as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable, to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.3 that so far notice of award has been served on either of the parties. The right accrued to the person interested, who has not accepted the award, for seeking reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act can be exercised by such person within the time stipulated in clauses (a) and (b) of proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act. As per the Andhra Pradesh State amendment to Section 12 (2) of the Act, if the award is not passed in the presence of the persons interested, the time limit for applying for reference of the disputes commences from the date of service of notice of award and expires on expiry of two months’ time from the date of service of the notice. As the notice of award is not stated to have been issued so far, the limitation for making such a request for reference under Section 18 of the Act has not yet been commenced. Therefore, the right of the petitioners for seeking reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act is well preserved. In the light of the above discussed facts and law, liberty is given to the petitioners to make a written representation to respondent No.3 for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act within one month from today. If such request is made, respondent No.3 shall refer the dispute to the competent civil court under Section 18 of the Act. For the period of one month, respondent No.3 shall not disburse compensation to the private respondents. If the request in writing is made within one month, the compensation shall not be disbursed even thereafter till conclusion of the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.49971 of 2012 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.