THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24130 of 2010 ORDER: The lands of the petitioners situated in Hathini Village, Dahegaon Mandal, Adilabad District were acquired through a notification, dated 06.03.2002, published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for an irrigation project. An award was passed on 26.05.2003. The petitioners state that they have received the compensation under protest and submitted representations on various dates within the time stipulated under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to a civil Court for enhancement. When no action has been taken thereon, they got issued a notice, dated 05.07.2003. Through his memo, dated 01.08.2003, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the request of the petitioners on the ground that they did not receive the amount under protest and he placed reliance upon a judgment, dated 04.04.1997, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3002 of 1997. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is not in dispute that an award was passed in respect of the lands of the petitioners on 26.05.2003. The petitioners have filed representations on different dates seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. A copy of the representation made on 26.06.2003 is filed and it discloses that the same was acknowledged by respondent No.3. The only ground on which respondent No.3 refused to act upon the representations made by the petitioners is that they did not receive the compensation under protest. It is no doubt true that Section 18 of the Act mandates that a reference under that provision can be made only when the compensation is received under protest and an application seeking reference is made within six weeks from the date of publication of the award. In the context of verifying as to whether the compensation was received under protest, hardly there exists any consistency. Neither the Act nor the Rules made thereunder prescribe any form of protest. Further, it is the Land Acquisition Officer or his subordinates that shall have to fill the columns relating to the record of protest. Unless an act or omission is attributed to the owner of the land, no final opinion can be expressed as to the factum of protest. A Full Bench of this Court in District Collector, Kakinada Vs. P.Nagabhushana Rao[1] expressed the following view on the nature of protest. “In the view we have taken, we answer the reference holding that in the absence of any manner of protest having been specified in the Act and the time when protest is to be lodged, act of filing of an application seeking reference to Civil Court within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act will impliedly infer that the claimant/person interested had accepted the amount with protest. Not expressly lodging protest at the time of receiving amount in such circumstance would not amount to waiver of the right to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act.” The facts of the present case squarely fit into the law laid down by the Full Bench. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to refer the matter to the civil Court on the basis of the representations submitted by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.03.2011. kdl [1] 2003 (6) ALT 353 (F.B.)