Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the petition is that this court should issue: "a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction as may be necessary to the respondent (Special Thasildar, III Malampuzha Project Palghat) to refer for adjudication to the Sub Court, Palghat the question of the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner relating to the standing crops on lands bearing S. Nos. 104/1,2,3,4,5,105,110/1, 2, 3,111/4, 5,118/1, 2 in Block 61 in Kadukkankunnam amsom, Palghat Taluk, under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act". 2. According to the respondent no reference was made under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, because no application was made in accordance with that section within the time specified in the proviso thereto. S.18 reads as follows: "(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 S.12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever shall first expire". It is common ground that the only application filed within time is Ext. B dated 14-9-1954. Ext. B reads as follows: It is clear from the wording of Ext. B that it does not comply with the provision of sub S. (2) of S.18 to the effect that "the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken". 3. Counsel for the petitioner tries to get over this difficulty by drawing my attention to a statement filed by his client before the respondent- Ext. A dated 9-8-1954 - and submitting that Exts. A and & should be read together. 4. 3. Counsel for the petitioner tries to get over this difficulty by drawing my attention to a statement filed by his client before the respondent- Ext. A dated 9-8-1954 - and submitting that Exts. A and & should be read together. 4. The reference sought in this case relates to standing crops and the relevant portion of Ext. A reads as follows: (The amount is received under protest.). 5. In A.I. R.1930 P. C. 64 it was pointed out that the grounds of objection contemplated are all or any of the four grounds of objection specified in sub-sec. (1) of S.18 namely (1) to the measurement of the land; (2) to the amount of compensation; (3) to the persons to whom it is payable; and (4) to the apportionment. 6. In A. I. R.1939 P.C.133 their Lordships said: "The Act does not require particulars to be given it requires only the grounds of objection to be given, and by'grounds' their Lordships think is meant such of the four grounds mentioned in S.18 (1) as are relied upon The same view as to the meaning of the word 'grounds' appears to have been entertained by their Lordships Board in A.I.R. 1030 P. C. 64" 7. There is no mention of any of the four grounds in Ext. B. There is no prayer for a reference in Ext. A. And I see no justification for introducing into Ext. B a ground of objection which is not there as to the amount of compensation on the strength of Ext. A. It follows that the refusal of a reference for lack of conformity with sub-sec. (2) of S.18 was proper and that this petition should be dismissed. 8. As stated in I. L. R. XXX Bom. 275: (S. 18 provides that any person interested, who, having not accepted the award, desires to have an adjudication of the claim by the court, should, within the period of limitation prescribed in the proviso to the section, do certain things. First, he must make a written application to the Collector. Secondly, that written application should require the Collector to refer the matter, for the determination of the Court, whether the 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. First, he must make a written application to the Collector. Secondly, that written application should require the Collector to refer the matter, for the determination of the Court, whether the 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. Thirdly, such application shall state the grounds on which "objection to the award is taken. These are the conditions prescribed by the Act for the right of the party to a reference by the Collector to come into existence. They are the conditions to which the power of the Collector to make the reference is subject. They are also the conditions which must be fulfilled before the Court can have jurisdiction to entertain the reference". 9. In Narayanappa Naidu v. Revenue, Divisional Officer, A.I.R. 1955 Mad.23 Govinda Menon, J. detailed the conditions laid down in S.18 & said: These are all matters of substance and their compliance is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of reference under the Section"; and quoted the following observation from Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Mynoodeen Khan 6 Moo Ind. App. 1314: "Wherever jurisdiction is given to a court by an Act of Parliament or by a regulation in India (which has the same, effect as an Act of Parliament), and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained in the regulation itself, it is a universal principle that these terms must be complied with in order to create and raise the jurisdiction for if they be not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise". 10. Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to A. I. R.1927 Mad. 282. The question as to what happens when sub-section (2) of S.18 is not complied with was not considered in that judgment. He also relied on A. I. R.1935 Bom. 319. In that case the applicant's attorneys acknowledged receipt of the award and wrote as follows to the Land Acquisition Officer: "Oar clients do not accept the award and request that the question of the amount of compensation he referred to the High Court". The court held, and if I may say so with respect, quite correctly, that the letter complied with the provisions of S.18. 11. There was some correspondence subsequent to Ext. The court held, and if I may say so with respect, quite correctly, that the letter complied with the provisions of S.18. 11. There was some correspondence subsequent to Ext. B. It is not contended that any of the communications sent by the petitioner subsequent to Ext. B was within time or that they amend Ext. B with effect from 14-9-54 and in view of that it is unnecessary to consider that correspondence in this judgment. 12. In the light of what is stated above the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.