M. S. NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) IN these two matters the same question of law is involved and hence they are being disposed of after hearing arguments on merits, by this common order. ( 2 ) THE lands of the respondent were acquired and an award granting compensation was passed. She took the compensation amount and filed an application under S 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a prayer that a reference be made under S. 18 of the Act. No reference was made. Hence she filed an application under S. I8 (3) (b) of the Act in the Court of the Principal civil Judge, Davangere, requesting the Court to direct the Land Acquisition officer namely, the petitioner, to make a reference. ( 3 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent had received the compensation amount without lodging any protest and therefore she was not entitled to make an application under S. 18 in view of the Second proviso to s. 31 (2) of the Act and as such the land Acquisition Officer, namely, the petitioner had not referred the application to the Court. ( 4 ) EVIDENCE on behalf of the respondent were recorded wherein it was made out that while receiving the compensation amount she had lodged protest orally and therefore the petitioner ought to have rcferred the question of enhancement to the Court under S. 18 of the Act. ( 5 ) THE only'point argued is that protest in writing ought to have been lodged, if not, any one could very easily contend that protest had been lodged orally that too after receiving the amount of compensation and with a view to avoid the application of the second proviso to S. 31 (2) of the Act. The second proviso to S. 31 (2) of the Act reads as follows :"provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under S. 18. " ( 6 ) PLAIN reading of this Proviso shows that it does not make it mandatory that the protest has to be lodged in writing. Therefore, it would be too much to read into this proviso that protest in writing had to be lodged. " ( 6 ) PLAIN reading of this Proviso shows that it does not make it mandatory that the protest has to be lodged in writing. Therefore, it would be too much to read into this proviso that protest in writing had to be lodged. The Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to counter the evidence adduced by the respondent in this behalf. This court has, in Krishna Rao v. L. A. Officer and R. D. Officer (AIR 1960 mysore 264), laid down that even the receipt of a cheque of 'c' form and keeping the same without encasing it, that too without protest, did not amount to receipt of compensation which is still lying with the government though in fact the cheque was open to be encashed at any time but was not encashed. There is a decision of the Gujarat high Court directly on the point in Raban Mahadev v Prant Officer (A. I. R 1979 Gujarat 192 ). It has been laid down there that protest against quantum of compensation need not be in writing. I respectfully agree with the principles laid down in the said decision. ( 7 ) IN view of the foregoing, I see no substance in these Revision petitions dismiss them. ( 8 ) NO costs under the facts and circumstances of the cases. --- *** --- .