JUDGMENT-The State of Maharashtra undertook Katepurna River Project in the Akola District for the purpose of constructing a dam and storing water for irrigation purposes. One of the villages which has to be submerged on account of this project is Warkhed Khurd. The petitioners here are residents of this village whose lands were acquired by the State of Maharashtra for this public purpose. The usual notifications under sections 4 and 60f the Land Acquisition Act were issued and a notice was also served on the petitioners to appear on 12-1-1963 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners appeared accordingly and filed their statements as well as their evidence. During the course of the proceedings the Land Acquisition Officer also paid advance compensation to the petitioners on 18-3-1963. After considering the evidence, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 12-3-1964. He also gave on the same day the balance compensation to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that on that day they made an oral protest against the adequacy of the compensation awarded to them. 2. It is their case that an application was also sent on 26-3-1963 protesting against the payment of inadequate compensation. According to them, Mr. G. T. Saoji, the Land Acquisition Officer, told the first petitioner that at the moment when he made the protest there was a large number of persons receiving large sums of compensation and that it was not possible for him to consider the same at that time and that he would consider his protest later on. As per the promise of Shri G. T. Saoji, the petitioner filed an application later on, on 24.3-1964, protesting against the inadequate amount of compensation given to them under the award. Because this application was not stamped properly, therefore, it was sent back for affixing proper stamps. The petitioner thereafter filed this application on 28-3-1964. According to the petitioners, Mr. Saroji assured the petitioners that the same would be considered by him or at any rate the petitioners had a remedy before the civil Court on a reference by the Collector. Because there was no move on the part of Mr. Saoji, there fore, they filed an application on 23-4-1964 to the Collector, Akola district, to make a reference to the civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He, however, rejected this application by an order dated 16-9-1964. Because there was no move on the part of Mr. Saoji, there fore, they filed an application on 23-4-1964 to the Collector, Akola district, to make a reference to the civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He, however, rejected this application by an order dated 16-9-1964. Their complaint is that this rejection of the application is contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice. 3. A return was filed by Mr. Saoji who is respondent No.2 denying all the allegations made by the petitioners and saying that no oral protest was ever made by the petitioners at the time when they received the payment. 4. The point, therefore, that arises here for consideration is to see whether the order of the Collector rejecting the application of the petitioners for a reference to the civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is legal and proper. 5. Admittedly, there is nothing in writing by the petitioners in protest while receiving the compensation either on 18-3-1963 the date of payment of advance compensation or on 12-3-1964 the date when the award was passed. The petitioner’s only contention is that they had orally protested against the in dequate compensation. This is denied by the respondent No.2. It would therefore be difficult for one to conclude that there was any protest at all by the petitioners at the time when the payment under the award was made. But the learned advocate for the petitioners contends here that the petitioners had sent an application on 28-3-1964 and that application could be treated as a protest. Reading that application, the petitioner No.1 admitted having received the compensation. But his complaint is that they have not received the compensation as Akhar land but as land which is situated at a distance fr9m the village. The Akhar land is said to be a land which is adjacent to the village. He has, therefore, requested that the compensation of the lands, should be higher than what was awarded to them because they were lands adjacent to the village. Can this application be treated as a protest as contemplated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act? It appears that this application on 24-3-1964 could not be said to be a protest because the protest ought to have been made on 12-3-1964 when the petitioners had received the compensation. 6. Can this application be treated as a protest as contemplated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act? It appears that this application on 24-3-1964 could not be said to be a protest because the protest ought to have been made on 12-3-1964 when the petitioners had received the compensation. 6. Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is as follows :- "31 (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according , to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted: Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 8: Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person law fully entitled there to. I have not mentioned sub-sections (3) and (4) because those sub-sections are irrelevant for our purpose. It is clear from section 31 that the Collector after the award was passed under section 11 has to tender the payment of the compensation to the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation. If the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation shall not consent to receive it, then the Collector has to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 has to be submitted. Therefore, there are two categories of persons. One category would be the persons who receive the payment. The other category of persons are those who do not consent to receive the same. Therefore, there are two categories of persons. One category would be the persons who receive the payment. The other category of persons are those who do not consent to receive the same. Section 31 also shows that a person can receive the payment of compensation without protest or can also receive it under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount. The first two provisos clearly show that the person who receives payment under protest is the only person who would be entitled to make any application under section 18 which deals with a reference to the Court. Under section 18 if the person why 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. If the person making this application was present or was represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, then he has to file such application within six weeks from the date of the Collectors award. If the person who makes this application was not present before the Collector when he made his award, then he has to file the application within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12 (2) or within six months from the date of the Collectors award whichever period shall first expire. Therefore, the person who does not consent to receive the payment of compensation has not only to protest at the time of receiving the payment if he wants to receive it, but also make an application within the prescribed period for reference to the Court. 7. The petitioners rely on the oral protest. I cannot accept this plea of the petitioners when they say that their protest was oral. The petitioners have also not mentioned their so-called oral protest in the application dated 28-3-1964. There could not have been therefore any oral protest. The application dated 24-3-1964 which is an application long after the receipt of payment at the time of the award also cannot amount to a protest under the provisos of section 31. The proviso clearly shows that if a person receives the amount, then he should do so under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount. The application dated 24-3-1964 which is an application long after the receipt of payment at the time of the award also cannot amount to a protest under the provisos of section 31. The proviso clearly shows that if a person receives the amount, then he should do so under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount. It is also provided there that the person who protests is the only person who will be entitled to make any application for reference to the Court. If a person does not protest while receiving the payment, then that person will not be entitled under section 31 to make any reference to the Court. The protest, of course, can be endorsed on the counter-foil or the receipt of it could as well be in writing at the same time before receiving the payment of compensation. If the protest is not of this kind, then it will not amount to a protest under section 31. If, therefore, the petitioners have not protested as provided in section 31, they will not be entitled to make an application for reference to the Court. 8. The Calcutta High Court in Suresh Charulra Roy v. The Land, Acquisition collector, Chimgurh1 as well as the Madras High Court in Mrs. S. Thomas v. The Collector of Madras, have taken a similar view. 9. The Collectors order is therefore proper. Therefore, this application in revision will have to be dismissed. It is dismissed with costs. Revision Application dismissed.