JUDGMENT - V.V. KAMAT, J.:---This is a revision application against the order dated 21-3-93 of the respondent No. 2 - Land Acquisition Officer, Amravati. At the stage of admission itself, I have heard Shri Gilda for the applicants and Mrs. Wandile, A.G.P. for the respondents. This revision application is being taken up for final hearing and decision in view of a short question as to whether reference should be directed to be made being involved forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel and the parties. Additional reason is that only yesterday a similar question is decided in C.R.A. No. 337/93 and 338/93, by me. 2. By now, the approach of the Court with regard to making reference to the Court is crystalised. The courts have gone to the situation of realisation that before certain bars are required to be considered, when pleaded, the courts have to assure themselves as to whether the claimants are aware of their existing legal rights or previliges, which, by words, deeds or conduct, must be shown to have intentionally or voluntarily given up. The courts have made themselves aware of the realities of the situation that invariably the Reference Courts have enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on acquisition of land. The courts have been aware of the inherent conservative attitude of the acquiring authorities, especially in the context of escalating spiral rise in prices which have displayed a galloping character in recent times. In fact, in matters decided yesterday, I have also focussed the deterioration of money value by observing to the extent that by the time when the claimants see the colour of money, they get almost three annas out of a rupee awarded to them. The courts in this context have ruled that it has to be ascertained as to whether the claimant was aware of his rights in regard to exercise of making an application for a reference and in a situation even observed that even if the claimant accepts compensation voluntarily without registering any protest, the Court is under duty to consider his legal awareness in the context. In fact placing reliance on the Judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in (Lachhman Das v. State)1, A.I.R. 1988 H.P. 39, I held, again presiding over the Aurangabad Bench to make further additions, when I found that nearly 140 claimants were deprived of their rights to make a reference and that too when they were intimated about rejection of their applications, after a period of three years thereafter. In the context, a need was felt to consider certain statutory provisions of the legislation of the year 1894 to such extent that it became imperative to accept the words of the claimants although the amounts were accepted, the acceptance should be taken as acceptance with protest, taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances of the situation. 3. This Court (myself) had an occasion to take view in (Rama Jondhale v. State of Maharashtra)2, 1991 Mh.L.J. 1128 when faced with the realities of the situation of the claimants whose lands were acquired for Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani and they got scattered from each other having lost their places of residence. The factual matrix of the present application reveals that the property is Survey No. 38 of mouza Takli Khurd within the limits of Amravati Municipal Corporation. In the land acquisition proceeding before the respondent No. 2, an award was passed on 4-9-90. Initially the petitioner presented an application on 9-10-90, obviously well within time. However, a view was taken that the reference can not be transmitted unless the amount of compensation is accepted under protest. It is clear that the initial application was well within time. The respondent No. 2 by letter dated 11-10-90 recorded the stand that the petitioner is not entitled to make any application under section 18 unless the amount of compensation is received otherwise than under protest and it is thereafter that a second application is made after compliance of the requisition as above. 4. Curiously enough, by the impugned order, this second application dated 11-10-90 stands rejected only on the ground that his earlier application is rejected and on no other ground. The impugned order shows that there was a reminder dated 12-1-93 and it is only thereupon that the impugned order is passed. 5. The initial application as stated above, is well within limitation and it has been rejected only on the ground that by then the amount of compensation was not withdrawn. 6. The impugned order shows that there was a reminder dated 12-1-93 and it is only thereupon that the impugned order is passed. 5. The initial application as stated above, is well within limitation and it has been rejected only on the ground that by then the amount of compensation was not withdrawn. 6. The facts specified above, not only make out a case in favour of the petitioner for a direction to respondent No. 2 to make a reference but create on occasion to reinforce the observations that are already made by this Court in Civil Revision Application Nos. 337/93 and 338/93 decided yesterday. By now even the acquiring bodies must draw uniform inference that their conservative attitude results in enhancement of the compensation by reference Court. Cases where award of the Special Land Acquisition Officers are not disturbed are the rarest of the rate cases. The courts also cannot be strangers to the situation that the claims who lose their lands and get compensation on the basis of date of notification never get adequate money value and the inevitable situation is a spiral rise of prices of galloping character as already observed. The courts have already made observations that an attempt is required to be made to find out as to whether the claimants are really aware of their legal rights. 7. In this situation, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Rule is made absolute. The impugned order dated 31-3-93 of the respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 2 is directed to make a reference acting on the initial application to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. `