Judgment : Petitioners 1 and 2 are minor children of the third petitioner. Petitioners 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.1037 of 2000 through their mother, in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, against their father and paternal grand mother. The suit schedule property included Acs.7.19 gts of land including Acs.4.06 gts situated in Survey No.436/A and 438/A of Vattinagulapally Village of Rajendranagar Mandal. A preliminary decree was passed on 16.08.2005 directing that petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled for 2/6th share in the suit schedule properties. I.A.No.341 of 2008 is pending for final decree. The first respondent issued notification, dated 13.12.2005, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {"the Act" for brevity}, proposing to acquire Acs.11.31 gts land in Survey No.438/A of Vattinagulapally Village for the purpose of laying outer ring road around Hyderabad. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 20.06.2006. The petitioners were issued notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act and they participated in the award enquiry. The Land Acquisition Officer, the second respondent, however, passed an award, dated 14.11.2007, paying the entire compensation for the land in Survey No.438/A to the third respondent. The petitioners contend that there was absolutely no justification on the part of the second respondent in passing an award without issuing notice to them under section 12 (2) of the Act and paying the entire compensation to the third respondent. It is stated that even if there exists any rival claim from the third respondent, the only course open to the second respondent was to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. They seek the relief in the form of direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners apart from referring the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement thereof. The second respondent filed counter affidavit admitting the fact that the notification under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act was issued for declaration of land in Survey No.438/A of Vattinagulapally Village. It is, however, stated that the Revenue records reveal that the compensation was paid to the third respondent. The second respondent filed counter affidavit admitting the fact that the notification under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act was issued for declaration of land in Survey No.438/A of Vattinagulapally Village. It is, however, stated that the Revenue records reveal that the compensation was paid to the third respondent. They denied their obligation to issue notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act or to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act. The third respondent filed counter narrating the manner in which the land was acquired in Survey No.438/A. Heard Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel, for the respondents. Thousands of acres of land in several villages around the city of Hyderabad were acquired for the purpose of laying outer ring road. Notifications were issued separately for different extents. Notification as regards the land in Survey No.438/A of Vattinagulapally is one such. The family of which the petitioners herein are members, held an extent of Acs.4.06 gts in Survey No.438/A. Obviously, on the basis of the information received in the course of verification, the second respondent issued notification under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act to the petitioners. The third petitioner, representing her minor children, submitted a detailed claim before the second respondent. As a matter of fact, in his award dated 14.11.2007, the second respondent made a detailed reference to the claim made by the petitioners. However, he paid the compensation to the third respondent, by simply making a reference to a claim made by it. This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which the second respondent, the then Land Acquisition Officer, has proceeded in the matter. It hardly needs any mention that if there exist rival claims for compensation, the only option open to the Land Acquisition Officer is to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act. There may be instances where more than one claim is made for compensation, but the title of one of them is so clinching and absolute that hardly can be doubted and the claim made by the other claimants is too feeble. In such a case, compensation can be paid to the party whose title is almost proved. There may be instances where more than one claim is made for compensation, but the title of one of them is so clinching and absolute that hardly can be doubted and the claim made by the other claimants is too feeble. In such a case, compensation can be paid to the party whose title is almost proved. However, in such rare cases, the Land Acquisition Officer must demonstrate the absolute nature of the title of the person whom he proposes to pay compensation and the feebleness of the one whose claim has to be rejected illumine. In the instant case, the claim of the petitioners was supported by a preliminary decree passed by the competent Court of law. The second respondent has also taken note of the same. When it came to the question of claim made by the third respondent, hardly any discussion was made about the source of its title or the manner of its title. The relevant paragraph reads as under. "M/s.Krishna Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad has filed claim petition for an extent of Ac.11-31 gts in respect of Sy.No.438 of Vattinagulapally Village coming under acquisition for Outer Ring Road. As per the documents furnished by above firm they are the pattedars and possessors of land under acquisition. As the above firm has not filed consent affidavit for sanction of compensation under package deal they are eligible for payment of compensation U/s.11(1) of the L.A. Act. Accordingly M/s. Krishna Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, is awarded compensation of Rs.1,18,77,443/-(Rupees One Crores Eighteen Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Three Only) for an extent of Ac.f11-31 gts in Sy.No.438." Added to this, the petitioners were not put on notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act. The procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was totally objectionable and serious doubts arise as to his impartial approach to the matter. It is on account of his lopsided approach that the petitioners, who are minors, were deprived of what was due to them. In Shyam Rao v. LAO (Spl.) ( 1991 (1) ALT 176 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court took the view that in matters of this nature, reference under Section 18 can be required to be made and the compensation paid contrary to law, to one of the parties must be recovered. In Shyam Rao v. LAO (Spl.) ( 1991 (1) ALT 176 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court took the view that in matters of this nature, reference under Section 18 can be required to be made and the compensation paid contrary to law, to one of the parties must be recovered. In the ordinary course of things, reference to a Civil Court, in the event of there being rival claims is to be made under Section 30 of the Act. That, however, is when the Land Acquisition Officer himself feels the necessity. The remedy provided for under Section 30 of the Act cannot be said to be the sole repository for determination of rival claims under the Act. Section 18 of the Act also provides for reference being made for determination of the entitlement of the various claimants, to receive the compensation. That would be in addition to the determination of adequacy or otherwise of the compensation. One aspect, which needs to be taken into account is that the petitioners herein and in particular petitioners 1 and 2 are not declared as the absolute owners of any definite extent of land in Survey No.438/A. It is only in the final decree proceedings, that their definite extent of property would be determined. In a given situation, equities are to be worked out. This Court is of the view that a reference to be made under Section 18 of the Act and adjudication thereof, along with the pending final decree proceedings would meet the ends of justice. Further, the third respondent can be required to furnish bank guarantee for an amount representing the value of Ac.1.16 gts of the acquired land, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The reference needs to be dealt with by a Court which has pecuniary jurisdiction as regards both the matters. Further, the pending final decree proceedings need to be transferred to the same court. The reference needs to be dealt with by a Court which has pecuniary jurisdiction as regards both the matters. Further, the pending final decree proceedings need to be transferred to the same court. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed directing that (a) The second respondent shall make a reference to Civil Court, in respect of award, dated 14.11.2007, as regard the claims between the petitioners on the one hand and the third respondent on the other hand, by addressing a letter to the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District; (b) The learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, shall allot the reference to a Court of competent pecuniary jurisdiction and he shall also direct to transfer I.A.No.341 of 2008 in O.S.No.1037 of 2000 to the same Court to which reference is made; and ensure that both the proceedings are heard together; (c) The third respondent shall furnish bank guarantee representing the compensation for Ac.1.16 gts of land within four {4} weeks from the date on which notice is issued to it in the reference; and (d) The fourth respondent is entitled to participate in the final decree proceedings limited to working out the equities. It shall be open to the petitioners to put forward their contention as to entitlement as well as for enhancement of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.