JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Petitioners were occupancy raiyats of 7.16 acres of land in Khunti No 25 of village Soda within Mahadebpali Police Station of the district of Sambalpur and these lands were notified for acquisition on 12.12-1954 under Orissa Act 18 of 1948 A notice purporting to be under Rule 5 of the Rules made under the said Act was served on the Petitioners on 23.81955 offering compensation of Rs. 1957/-/6 and indicating therein that objection in writing could be furnished within seven days of receipt of such notice (vide Annexure-I). Petitioners sent their objection on 24-8-1955 i.e. the day following the receipt of the notice by registered post and assert that the same was received by the competent authority on 1-9-1955. Petitioners remained under the impression that as they have filed their objection in time, in due course the reference would be made to the arbitrator. But as no action was ultimately taken, they have applied for a direction for referring the dispute to arbitration as contemplated under the statute and the Rules made thereunder by issue of a writ of malldamus. 2. The facts stated are not in dispute. We must, therefore, proceed on the footing that the notice under Rule 5 had been served on 23-8-1955. the objection thereto was sent by the Petitioners by registered post to the competent authority on 24-8-1955 and it was received on 1-9-1955. The opposite parties have taken the stand that under Rule 8, the claimants are required to notify their disagreement to the competent authority in writing within seven days of the receipt of the written notice under Rule 5(2). The Petitioners have failed to notify the competent authority within the prescribed period and as such the competent authority was not obliged to take action under Rule 9 and reference to arbitration could not be asked for. 3. There is no prescription that the claimants should notify the competent authority in terms of Rule 8 by personally filing their objection in writing. Learned Government Advocate does not contend that compliance of Rule 8 cannot be made by filing the written objection through post. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that such procedure is prevalent. Under the Land Acquisition Act of which the Orissa Act is supplementary, the prevailing practice is that applications u/s 18 are received by post. Learned Government Advocate does not contend that compliance of Rule 8 cannot be made by filing the written objection through post. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that such procedure is prevalent. Under the Land Acquisition Act of which the Orissa Act is supplementary, the prevailing practice is that applications u/s 18 are received by post. As would appear from the case of N. Rajendran Vs. The Revenue Divisional and Land Acquisition Officer, an application sent by post for making a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was taken as valid. In the case of Ranganathan Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer Pattukottai the learned Judge has observed: Under the Act, a communication by post is permitted. The learned Government Pleader concedes that position. It is not stated in Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act that the application shall be presented in person to the Acquisition Officer. The expression used is general and it is, application shall be made.... The Land Acquisition Act prescribes for making of an application. The relevant Orissa rule prescribes, that disagreement to be notified. Since Rule 8 requires the grounds of disagreement to be stated in writing, the position necessarily postulates the making of an application specifying the grounds of disagreement. It is conceded by learned Government Advocate, before us that neither under the Act nor under the rules is there a prescription for personally notifying the competent authority. In the circumstances, we conclude that compliance of Rule 8 can be made by sending the requisite communication by post. 4. The notice under Rule 5(2) was received on 23-8-1955. The objection was sent by post on 24-8-1955. It was received in the office of the competent authority on 1-9-1955. Excluding the date of service of notice for the purpose of computation of seven days as provided by Rule 8, Petitioners were to notify the competent authority on or before 30th of August, 1955. Receipt of the objection on 1st of September is claimed to be two days beyond the prescribed period. Mr. Mohapatra for the Petitioners contends that since under the rules, postal presentation of the objection is permissible, the postal department must be considered to be the agent of the competent authority and making over of the objection to the postal department must tantamount to presentation thereof. In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay Vs. Mr. Mohapatra for the Petitioners contends that since under the rules, postal presentation of the objection is permissible, the postal department must be considered to be the agent of the competent authority and making over of the objection to the postal department must tantamount to presentation thereof. In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay Vs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., Ogale Wadi dealing with the Question as to where the income accrued with reference to Section 4 of the income tax Act of 1922, the Supreme Court emphasised upon the feature that the payee had requested for despatch of the cheque by post and, therefore, the post office was considered as the agent of the addressee. The Court observed: ...There can be no doubt that as between the sender and the addressee it is the request of the addressee that the cheque be sent by post that makes the post office the agent of the aderessee. After such request the addressee cannot be heard to say that the post office was not his agent and, therefore, the loss of the cheque in transit must fall on the sender on the specious plea that the sender having the very limited right to reclaim the cheque under the Post Office Act, 1898, the Post Office was his agent, when in fact there was no such reclamation. Of course if there be no such request, express or implied, then the delivery of the letter or the cheque to the post office is delivery to the agent of the sender himself. Apart from this principle of agency there is another principle which makes the delivery of the cheque to the post office at the request of the addressee a delivery to him and that is that by posting the cheque in pursuance of the request at the creditor the debtor performs his obligation In the manner prescribed and sanctioned by the creditor and thereby discharges the contract by such performance (see Section 50 of the Indian Contract Act and illustration (d) thereto). The same question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in two subsequent decisions the first being the case of Shri Jagadish Mills Ltd. by its successor Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of income tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmedabad AIR 1959 S.C. 1160 , and the second being the case of The Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of income tax (Central), Bombay AIR 1966 S.C. 1466 . In the case of Shri Jagadish Mills Ltd. by its Successor Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of income tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmedabad AIR 1959 S.C. 1160 , the Court found that there was no request by the addressee and the despatch of the cheques by Government by post was at its option. Therefore, the Court held that the post office acted as the agent of the Government and not of the company. In the latter case The Indore Malwa United Mills v. The Commissioner of income tax (Central), Bombay AIR 1966 S.C. 1466 , the Court observed: ...Having regard to the fact that the Assessee was at Indore and the Supply Department of the Government of India was at New Delhi, the parties must have intenfied that the Government would send the cheques to the Assessee by post from New Delhi, and this inference is supported by the fact that the cheques used to be sent to the Assessee by post. In the circumstances, there was an implied agreement between the parties that the Government of India would send the cheques to the Assessee by post. The Court, therefore, concluded saying: ...We are satisfied that the post office was the agent of the Assessee for the purpose of receiving the cheques representing the sale proceeding and the Assessee received the sale proceeds in British India where the cheques were posted, and consequently, the profits in respect of the sales were taxable u/s 4(1)(a).... The principles gatherable from these decisions are the following: (i) If parties reside at different places and there be no express requirement of performance by personal contact or appearance, it may be taken as implicit that agency of the post office may be availed; and (ii) If rules enable transmission by post and the sender performs his part of the duty through the postal system, the post office should be taken as an agent of the addressee. The decision of the Madras High Court in Ranganathan's case supports this position. Palaniswamy, J, observed: ...If, for instance, in a case, the owner of the land sends his requisition for making a reference u/s 18 of the Act well in advance before the expiry say, ten days before the expiry of the time, and if for some reason or other for which he is not responsible, the postman delays and hands over the requisition to the Acquisition Officer after the expiry of the time it cannot be said that the owner did not make the application within that time. So long as the taw permits on application to be sent by post, it should be deemed that the moment an application is posted, it is an application made on that date, and the fact that the application reached the other side some days later cannot make it an application made after the due date.... We may refer to two other decisions. In the case of Raja Ram Vs. Bisram the question for consideration was whether the compromise decree postulating satisfaction in entirety on payment of a reduced amount by a particular date 'had been satisfied by tender of the agreed amount to the post office, which, however, reached the Court beyond the time. Relying on the provision of Section 44 of the Post Office Act, the Court found that the remitter had control over the delivery and he could even require the post office at any point of time before actual delivery of the money to addressee to return the same to the remitter. The Court, therefore, did not accept the position that the Post Office was an agency of the Court and payment in Post Office was not accepted as satisfaction of the requirement under the decree. Same is the principle in the case of Harbhagwan Ram Lal Vs. Punjab and Pepsu Financiers Ltd.. u/s 18 of the Post Office Act of 1898, the sender has no right to recall a postal article in course of transmission by post. 5. From the preceding discussion, it would follow that the objection containing the grounds of disagreement as stipulated under the rules is presentable by post and in the circumstances the duty cast upon the claimant to file an application containing the grounds of disagreement can be fulfilled by presenting the objection through post. 5. From the preceding discussion, it would follow that the objection containing the grounds of disagreement as stipulated under the rules is presentable by post and in the circumstances the duty cast upon the claimant to file an application containing the grounds of disagreement can be fulfilled by presenting the objection through post. The post office III the circumstances must be taken to be the agent of the competent authority. In the instant case, the objection of the Petitioner must, therefore, be taken to have been really made on 24-8-1955 and there was no delay in filing of the same. 6. Under the scheme, once there is a valid objection, there is no discretion left in the competent authority not to refer the dispute to arbitration. Inaction on the part of the competent authority would not take away the right of the claimants to have their dispute decided by arbitration nor can this application be thrown out on the ground of laches or delay, inasmuch as the Petitioners had done their part and were looking forward for appropriate action by the competent authority. 7. We would accordingly allow the application and direct the opposite parties to take further steps as contemplated under the Act and the rules on the footing that the claimants had notified the grounds of their disagreement to the offer made by the competent authority as required by law. Petitioners shall be entitled to costs. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred. P.K. Mohanti, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed