As per case facts, a land acquisition process for an under-bridge led to disputes between the sons and daughters of the original owner over compensation and property shares. Initially, sons ... proposed land exchange, which was later cancelled. After multiple rounds of litigation concerning exchange deeds and acquisition notifications, the daughters claimed their right to compensation, which the Acquisition Officer rejected. The daughters successfully challenged this rejection in a Writ Petition, where a Single Judge directed the matter to be referred to a Competent Authority. The sons appealed this decision. The question arose whether the Acquisition Officer had jurisdiction to decide disputed claims over land and compensation, or if it should be referred to a Competent Authority under Act 30 of 2013. Finally, the High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, clarifying that the Acquisition Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide such disputes and must refer the matter to the Competent Authority, ensuring both parties are heard and previous observations do not influence the decision.