A.V. Savant, C.J.

Heard Mr. Philip Mathew, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohamed Youseff, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

2. These petitions have been placed before us pursuant to the order of reference dated 1st August, 2000 passed by a Division Bench. The questions of law, which arise for our determination, are as under:

(i) Whether i n the scheme of the provisions of S.31 r/w S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) is an application for reference maintainable under S.18 of the Act, without the applicant proving that he had received the payment under protest as to sufficiency of the amount?

(ii) What is the stage at which the protest contemplated by the first two provisos to S.31(2) has to be lodged? Can such a protest be lodged subsequently, after receiving the payment without protest?

(iii) If the acceptance of compensation under protest is the sine qua non (as required by the second proviso to S.31(2)) to the making of an application under S.18, can such a protest be made orally or whether it is necessary that such protest should always be in writing?

(iv) If there is neither a written protest nor even an oral pr