Koshy, J.

This Original Petition has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court (Justice Mr. Pius C. Kuriakose), for a second look at the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Kamalakshy v. District Collector (1988 (2) KLJ 545) holding that the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Venkatasami Naidu v. State of Madras (1964 MLJ 262 = AIR 1964 Mad. 434) has been impliedly overruled in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Shiva Bhai (1977 (9) SCC 710).

2. Before answering the question referred to us, we will consider the facts of this case. Petitioner received notice on 4-5-1989, issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short ‘the Act’) regarding the passing of Ext.P2 award in respect of the property acquired from him, fixing the market value of the land at Rs.519.40 per Are. He accepted the amount protest, as to the sufficiency of the amount. Within the time prescribed, he also requested for enhancement of compensation by letter dated 1-6-1989. Petitioner, in the above letter, stated that the market price of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs.1,5000/- per cent and at least that rate should be allowed to him. But, his case was not referred under Section 18 of the Act. The ground taken by the Government Pleader to produce the files, so that we can peruse the letter dated 1-6-1989 written by the petitioner. The operative portion of the letter reads as follows:

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the letter the petitioner has made a clear request that he should be awarded an amount of Rs.1,500/- per cent, on the ground to prevailing market value in the locality. It is the contention of the petitioner that the above letter should be construed as a request for reference that merely because the word ‘refer’ is not used, it cannot be rejected. Section 18 reads as follows:

“18. Reference to Court- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made.—

a) if the person making it was present or represented before the collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;

b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.”

Four essential prerequisites for making a reference under Section 18 are:

1) interested party, who is applying for reference, has not accepted the award amount, or has accepted the same only under protest, as required under Section 31(2) of the Act.

2) There must be an application in writing, with a request to make a reference.

3) It should contain the grounds of objection.

4) It should be filed within the time prescribed under Section 18(2).

The full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Joseph v. Special Tahsildar (2001 (1 KLT 958 (FB)) held that before making reference, the Collector should be satisfied that the ingredients of Section 18 are satisfied and making of a protest is mandatory. But the protest can also be an oral protest. In O.P.No.25039/2002 (Thoduvayil Pathooty v. District Collector, Kannur) the Division Bench also held that unless these mandatory conditions are satisfied, Collector is not competent to make a reference.

4. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court, in Venkatasami Naidu’s case (supra) held that when protest letter is filed in time, it implies a request for reference. The