R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise in all these civil revision applications, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) HEARD. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

( 3 ) IN all these applications the applicants challenge the rejection of their applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as "the said Act" which were filed by the applicants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the land Acquisition Officer consequent to acquisition of their land. The applications hove been rejtcted on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the land Acquisition Officer in terms of the award passed under Section 11 of the said Act was accepted by tht applicants without lodging protest.

( 4 ) PLACING reliance in the decision of this Court in the matter of Manjiri Ranganath Kulkarni v. State of maharashtra, reported in 2003 (1) ALL M. R. 27, the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the authorities considering the application under Section 18 of the said Act cannot reject the application except on the ground that the same is beyond the period of limitation prescribed thereunder. The applications having been rejected on totally extraneous grounds, the orders passed by the authorities are without jurisdiction and, therefore, should be set aside. The learned A. G. P. appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the second proviso to section 31 (2) of the said Act clearly requires the acceptance of money under protest in order to enable the interested party to seek reference under Section 18 of the said Act and in all the cases in hand, undisputedly, the amount was accepted without lodging protest and therefore no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the authorities rejecting the applications filed by the applicants.

( 5 ) THE Secion 18 (1) of the said Act clearly antitles the interested person who has not accepted the award to make a request to the Collector to refer the matter for determination by the Court in relation to the measurement of the land or the amount of compensation or in relation to apportionment of the compensation amongst the interested persons. Undoubtedly, in terms of sub section (2) such an application will have to be filed within a period of six weeks from the date of intimation of the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer under Section 11 of the said Act and in case of non-receipt of such intimation under Section 12 (2) of the said Act, the period of limitation would be six months from the date of the award for the purposeof seeking reference under Section 18 of the said Act.

( 6 ) IN Manjiri Ranganath Kulkarnis case (supra) the collector had rejected the application filed under section 18 on the ground that sufficient material was not produced in support of the claim for enhancement along with the application and secondly on account of failure on the part of the applicant to pay sufficient court fee within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the application, though the application was filed within the period of limitation. Whi1 e setting aside the order of the Collector rejecting the application on the said ground and referring to Section 18 of the said act and various decisions of this Court including the decisions in the matters of Bhagwan Pandurang Patil v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 1986 mh. L. J. 181, Balkrimhna Daji Gupta v. The Collector of bombay, reported in AIR 1923 Bom 290, Mahadeo Krishna parkar v. Mamlatdar of Alibag, reported in AIR 1944 bom. 200 as well as Mohanlal Hochandra Doshi v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1967 Bom. 224, it was held that the provisions of law contained in Section 18 of the said Act do not authorise the Collector to reject the application on any ground other than those specified under the said provision of law and the law