ORDER AKIL KURESHI, J.:— The petitioners are heirs of one Jiviba, who was daughter of Chandrasinh Jethisinh, whose land came up acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award, upon which sons of deceased Chandrasinh sought a reference for apportionment before the Reference Court. The Land Acquisition Officer granted such reference. We are informed that such reference is at advance stage of hearing before the Reference Court. 2. In the meantime, the present petitioners, heirs of deceased Jiviba moved application before the Land Acquisition Officer and sought reference regarding apportionment under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Such application came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 mainly on the ground that the petitioners have no right, title and interest in the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer interpreted terms of a Will made by Chandrasinh, on which all sited relied upon, to come to conclusion that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the land in acquisition. He also noted that entire amount of compensation has been deposited before the Reference Court and that, therefore, there is no question of making reference at the instance of the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the Will, Chandrasinh had given only life-time interest to Gajaraba and after her death, to the two sons also for life-time and therefore, after the death of these three persons, the property would revert back to be devolved as per the Hindu Succession Act. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer committed a serious error in interpreting the terms of the Will, which was beyond the scope of his jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the terms of the Will are clear. Under such Will, Jiviba was not granted any share of the property. This was so clearly stated in Clause-10 of the Will. The Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, committed no error since it was a clear case where the petitioners failed to establish even the prima facie rights. 5. Had the terms of the Will been crystal clear, devolving no part or interest of the property on the deceased Jiviba, we would have perhaps accepted the contention of the Counsel for the respondents that when the petitioners failed to establish even semblance of right, at their request, that too rather belatedly, reference could not be made. 5. Had the terms of the Will been crystal clear, devolving no part or interest of the property on the deceased Jiviba, we would have perhaps accepted the contention of the Counsel for the respondents that when the petitioners failed to establish even semblance of right, at their request, that too rather belatedly, reference could not be made. However, it is well settled that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, while considering the question whether reference could be made or not, cannot enter into the merits of the rival claims and adjudicate upon the same since it is the duty and authority of the Reference Court to do so once reference is made. In the present case, we are not inclined to interpret the terms of the Will and come to conclusion whether petitioners have any right under the Will or not. We leave it to the Reference Court to do so. The Special Land Acquisition Officer committed an error in entering into the arena of interpretation of the terms of the Will. 6. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 23.09.2015 is set aside. The petitioners' request for reference to the Reference court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is granted. The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall make a suitable reference. It is, however, clarified that this will have no bearing on the pending reference before the Reference Court, which shall be decided expeditiously as previously desired by this Court. 7. Petition disposed of accordingly.