JUDGMENT - V.V. KAMAT, J.:---This judgment would dispose of in all 144 Revision Applications filed by respective petitioners under section 18(iii) of the Land Acquisition Act, against the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani, declining to make a reference to the Court as contemplated under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The lands in question, together with the houses and other structures standing thereon, are sought to be acquired for the purposes of extention of the area of Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani, on the basis of notification under section 4 of the Act, punished in the Gazette on May 22nd, 1980. It appears that thereafter, provisions of section 6 and section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were complied with, and, in the land acquisition proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, these claimants lodged their claims, inter alia, contending that alongwith lands in question, their residential houses are also acquired, as a result of which, the claimants were constrained to change their residence. 3. It appears that the awards were passed on April 14th, 1986 and the amount of compensation appears to have been received by the claimants of April 16th, 1986. 4. In all these Revision Applications, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners claimants that on account of change of residence, the petitioners claimed additional compensation; that necessary and proper enquiry has not been carried out by the Special Land Acquisition Officer with reference to the situation factor of the suit property, the structure and the nature of the construction standing thereon. It is contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate. 5. The petitioners got the suit property measured and valued by an Architect and obtained his opinion to the effect that the valuation in every respect is much more than the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 6. The petitioners, claimed that the property under acquisition was in a developed locality. Village Sendra, has transport facility and is at a distance of about 3 Kms. from Parbhani town. The learned Counsel stated before me that the village is today included in the Municipal area of Parbhani town. It is further contended that as a result of prior acquisition of lands by Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, there has been a spiral rise thereafter at this village. from Parbhani town. The learned Counsel stated before me that the village is today included in the Municipal area of Parbhani town. It is further contended that as a result of prior acquisition of lands by Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, there has been a spiral rise thereafter at this village. The petitioners-claimants have stated all these aspects in their applications for reference, which according to them, has been filed within the period of limitation and complied in all respect. This was in the year 1986, in the month of April. 7. Nothing happened thereafter for a period of well.-night three years, and, on August 11th, 1989 the petitioners-claimants received a shock informing them that their reference applications of the year 1986 are being disposed of on the ground that the amounts were not withdrawn by lodging the necessary protest, presumably, as is required under the provisions of section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. All the petitioners have stated on oath in all these applications that they have, in fact, withdrawn the amount after lodging protest in writing before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 9. These Civil Revision Applications were accompanied by Civil Applications for condonation of delay. By my order dated February 1st, 1991 the delay in filing these Revision Applications was condoned after hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. However, it is pertinent to refer to the reaction of these petitioners on receiving this intimation after a period of three years. The petitioners claimants, who appear to be all rustic villagers of the village, approached their advocate and requested him to look into the matter. They informed their advocate that matters amounting to 400 to 500, have been rejected by the same Land Acquisition Officer just by a stroke of pen. Their advocates collectively decided to meet the Collector of the District, (respondent No. 1), and to request him to issue necessary directions to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. These appplications for condonation of delay contained a specific averment that the Collector, Parbhani-Mr. Ramani-promised the advocates to look into the matter. The petitioners waited for about two to three months and repeated their requests by an application dated October 19th, 1990 through their advocate. The petitioners have averred that the Collector, Parbhani, promised to look into the matter and issue necessary instructions. Ramani-promised the advocates to look into the matter. The petitioners waited for about two to three months and repeated their requests by an application dated October 19th, 1990 through their advocate. The petitioners have averred that the Collector, Parbhani, promised to look into the matter and issue necessary instructions. The total inaction on the part of the Collector, Parbhani compelled these petitioners to approach this Court by these Revision Applications. These Revision Applications were admitted and were made returnable for immediate hearing and disposal, and, are accordingly, being considered by me by this judgment. 10. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that atleast in more than one hundred of these application, copies of the protest letters are annexed and, apart therefrom, each one of these Revision Application contains an averment that the petitioners have accepted the amount of compensation under protest and have filed an application for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within the statutory period of limitation. This position is not controverted on behalf of the respondents. 11. Shri Wagh, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, placed heavy reliance on the provisions of section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which deprives a claimant of his right of reference. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted strenuously that the protest is to be proved to have been lodged at the time of acceptance of the amount, and, in this context, the learned Counsel submitted that the question as to whether the protest has been lodged in accordance with the provisions of section 31(2) is the question which is to be borne out by the facts of the case. 12. The record clearly shows that for the purpose of extention of Maharashtra Agricultural University area, additional land appears to have been acquired by issuance of necessary notification. There are about 400 to 450 claimants concerned with this acquisition of land, and at any rate, atleast 144 claimants are before this Court by this Revision Application. All these claimants are villagers who have been dispossessed from their residence and the property surrounding, as a result of which, had to change their residential arena. 13. There are about 400 to 450 claimants concerned with this acquisition of land, and at any rate, atleast 144 claimants are before this Court by this Revision Application. All these claimants are villagers who have been dispossessed from their residence and the property surrounding, as a result of which, had to change their residential arena. 13. The provision of section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is more or less in the nature of a waiver or an estoppel which debars the claimant of his right of adjudication of adequacy of compensation by the courts. 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, (Laxmandas v. State of Himachal Pradesh another)1, A.I.R. 1988 H.P. 39 : (P.D. Desai, C.J. and R.S. Thakur, J.), delivered by the Chief Justice Shri. P.D. Desai, (now the Chief Justice of this Court) in which, the necessary provision has come up for consideration. It is observed that it would be irrational and unrealistic to assume that a rustic or an illiterate villager must be aware of the provisions of section 18 read with the second proviso the sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Act and to infer from his conduct amounting to the acceptance of the compensation without any express protest an intentional relinquishment of his own legal right or a representation deliberately made to the effect that he would not prosecute the further remedy available to him by way of a reference under section 18 of the Act. In the context, it is observed that the person against whom waiver is to be pleaded, must be aware of his existing legal right or privilege, which, by his words, deed or conduct, he must be shown to have intentionally and voluntarily given up. In the context, it is observed that the person against whom waiver is to be pleaded, must be aware of his existing legal right or privilege, which, by his words, deed or conduct, he must be shown to have intentionally and voluntarily given up. With reference to second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is specifically observed that the said provision, before its placement against the person, is to show that the person concerned, was aware of his right to make an application for reference, that he knew that such right would be defeated if he make an application for reference, that he knew that such right would be defeated if he accepted the compensation without protest, and, that he nevertheless accepted the compensation voluntarily without registering any protest, or his words or conduct were such as to tentatmount to an intentional representation that he was accepting the compensation without any reservation. 15. Observations really relate to the felt necessities of time in the context of the situation at hand. The petitioners are rustic villagers, nearly 400 to 500 in number, who have been rendered houseless as a result of the proposed acquisition, who had to change their residence to a different place and who have been intimated of the decline by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference after a period of more than three years. The petitioners have stated on oath that they have accepted the compensation under protest. In addition, atleast out of these 144 petitioners - claimants, more than 100 petitioners - claimants have in fact annexed the copies of their protest letters to these petitions. Not content with this, all the petition contain an averment on oath of acceptance of compensation under protest and lodging of the application for reference within the statutory period of limitation. 16. In my judgment, the observations of the Himachal Pradesh High Court are apt and proper in the context of time and situation and have more than a persuasive effect in the process of the decision of these matters. 17. The facts and circumstances referred to above do not hesitate me to come to the conclusion that the petitioners have accepted the amount of compensation under protest and have made their applications for reference within the period of limitation. 18. 17. The facts and circumstances referred to above do not hesitate me to come to the conclusion that the petitioners have accepted the amount of compensation under protest and have made their applications for reference within the period of limitation. 18. The result of the foregoing discussion is that these revisions are allowed. The order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.K.V., Parbhani, refusing to make reference is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani (Respondent No. 2) is directed to refer the matter under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the question of adequacy of compensation to the District Court, Parbhani and on receipt of the reference, the proceedings be registered as Land Acquisition reference by the District Court, Parbhani, accordingly. The respondents are directed to pay the cost of the petitioners in each of these petitions, with necessary surcharge. Order accordingly. -----