THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No. 22154 of 2002 ORDER: None appears for the petitioners. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondent. This writ petition has been instituted by the 14 petitioners who are all residents of Segampally village, Bhoopalpalli Mandal, in Warangal District calling in question the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug on 31.1.2002, rejecting the application submitted by the writ petitioners seeking a reference to be made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the civil court for determination of appropriate quantum of compensation for the lands acquired. The applications have been rejected only on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been received by them without protest. It is relevant to notice the following facts: Pursuant to a notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 1.5.1992, land of an extent of Ac.14.35 ¼ gts, belonging to the petitioners herein, has been acquired for the purpose of construction of office quarters for Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 16.8.1999 awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- per acre as compensation. Aggrieved by this determination of quantum of compensation, the writ petitioners have all submitted applications before the Land Acquisition Officer on 22.9.1999 seeking a reference to be made to the civil court for determination of the appropriate quantum of compensation payable in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Those applications have all been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer through the impugned memo dated 31.1.2002, on the ground that the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer has been received without any protest and hence the applications need not be entertained and no reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act need to be made to the civil court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has fairly submitted that this principle as to whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has to be received only under protest, if one were to seek any reference thereof under Section 18 has fallen for consideration of a Full Bench of this court and through the judgment rendered in District Collector, Kakinada v. Nagabhushana Rao[1], the Full Bench of this court had ruled that one does not require to either protest or have the same recorded while receiving the compensation for maintaining an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference to the civil court. In view of this principle enunciated by the Full Bench of this court in the aforementioned case, the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug cannot be sustained. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug, Warangal District, is therefore directed to make a reference to the civil court, the claim of the writ petitioners for determination of appropriate quantum of compensation for the lands belonging to them which stood acquired pursuant to the notification issued under subsection (1) of Section 4, and the reference be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, without costs. ------------- knk 11.03.2010 [1] 2003(6) ALT 353