The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Land Acquisition Act, the acceptance of compensation under protest and adherence to the time limit for filing a reference application under section 18 are crucial for the Land Acquisition Officer's duty to refer the matter to the Court.

Koshy, J.

40 cents of petitioner's property was acquired after all statutory formalities. Award was passed on 15-4-:1996. Notice of award was served under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') on 16-5-1996. Property was taken possession of by the authority on 18-5-1996. Compensation was paid on 20-5-1996. According to the petitioner, in one of the forms he had endorsed 'not satisfactory'. Files were called for and they show that compensation was accepted without any sort of protest. According to the petitioner it was accepted by oral protest. However, there are no records or evidence to show that the amount was received under protest. On next day of receipt of compensation he applied for reference to the Court for enhancement of compensation. Section 18 of the Act is 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."

Proviso to section 31(2) of the Act stipulates that "no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18."

2. Application for reference under section 18 of the Act filed by the petitioner was rejected, as award amount was not accepted under protest. Petitioner relied on the Apex Court decision reported in Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others ((1994) 4 SCC 67) and argued that since he has filed application in time, his application should not have been rejected. Petitioner also relied on the decision reported in Sosa v. State (1966 KLT 998) and argued that in any event Land Acquisition Officer should have referred the matter to the Court and it is for the Court to decide whether application was filed in accordance with Section 18.

3. In the decision reported in Sosa's case referred to earlier, it was not held that all applications under section 18 should be sent to Civil Court whether it is time-barred or not; or maintainable or not. It was held by this Court that even if the matter is referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Court, Court can examine whether application is time-barred or not. There the contention of the petitioner was that once the matter is referred, Court cannot look into matters like time bar etc. and it has to be considered only on merits. This' contention was turned down by the Court. But, if the application is time-barred or not maintainable, Land Acquisition Officer need not send the matter to the Court. Land Acquisition Officer not merely act as a post office. Of course, merits of the matter can be decided only by the Court. If the award amount was received without protest or if the application is filed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 18, the Land Acquisition Officer has no duty to send the same to the Court. The policy of the Legislature is clear from the collective reading of sections 16,20 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act that any person who was accepted the award is not entitled to make an application under section 18 of the Act nor is entitled to receive the notice of any application that may have been made by some other person. Second pro