Ramesam, J.

1. These two petitions arise out of the same matter. It would be convenient to set out the facts. The Taluk Board of Kollegal applied for the acquisition of some sites for public purposes. Land acquisition proceedings were taken under the Act and an award passed on the 16th February 1923. Notices of the [missing text]ward were duly served on the parties, but they did not appear on that date. We are now concerned only with one of those parties. The parties, including the present petitioners, put in petitions objecting to the amounts of compensation. This is the statement made by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his letter dated the 26th February 1923. The letter gives further information about the proper values of the three sites and the second site is the site of the petitioner. I, therefore, infer that the petitioner also sent petitions. like the others when the letter of the 26th February 1923 was received by the District Judge. He returned it to the Revenue Divisional Officer with the following endorsement:

It does not appear from the letter of reference whether under Section 18 of the Act the claimants asked by written application for a reference to this Cour