Judgment :- Koshy, J. 40 cents of petitioner's property was acquired after all statutory formalities. Award was passed on 15-4-:1996. Notice of award was served under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') on 16-5-1996. Property was taken possession of by the authority on 18-5-1996. Compensation was paid on 20-5-1996. According to the petitioner, in one of the forms he had endorsed 'not satisfactory'. Files were called for and they show that compensation was accepted without any sort of protest. According to the petitioner it was accepted by oral protest. However, there are no records or evidence to show that the amount was received under protest. On next day of receipt of compensation he applied for reference to the Court for enhancement of compensation. Section 18 of the Act is as follows : "18. Reference to Court: - (1) Any person interested who 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, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken; Provided that every such application shall be made: (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award : (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire." Proviso to section 31(2) of the Act stipulates that "no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18." 2. Application for reference under section 18 of the Act filed by the petitioner was rejected, as award amount was not accepted under protest. Petitioner relied on the Apex Court decision reported in Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others ((1994) 4 SCC 67) and argued that since he has filed application in time, his application should not have been rejected. Petitioner relied on the Apex Court decision reported in Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others ((1994) 4 SCC 67) and argued that since he has filed application in time, his application should not have been rejected. Petitioner also relied on the decision reported in Sosa v. State (1966 KLT 998) and argued that in any event Land Acquisition Officer should have referred the matter to the Court and it is for the Court to decide whether application was filed in accordance with Section 18. 3. In the decision reported in Sosa's case referred to earlier, it was not held that all applications under section 18 should be sent to Civil Court whether it is time-barred or not; or maintainable or not. It was held by this Court that even if the matter is referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Court, Court can examine whether application is time-barred or not. There the contention of the petitioner was that once the matter is referred, Court cannot look into matters like time bar etc. and it has to be considered only on merits. This' contention was turned down by the Court. But, if the application is time-barred or not maintainable, Land Acquisition Officer need not send the matter to the Court. Land Acquisition Officer not merely act as a post office. Of course, merits of the matter can be decided only by the Court. If the award amount was received without protest or if the application is filed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 18, the Land Acquisition Officer has no duty to send the same to the Court. The policy of the Legislature is clear from the collective reading of sections 16,20 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act that any person who was accepted the award is not entitled to make an application under section 18 of the Act nor is entitled to receive the notice of any application that may have been made by some other person. Second proviso to section 31(2) of the Act creates a statutory bar to a person who has accepted the compensation without protest from making an application under section 18 of the Act. Second proviso to section 31(2) of the Act creates a statutory bar to a person who has accepted the compensation without protest from making an application under section 18 of the Act. Usually a protest ought to be made, firstly in the application for receiving the disputed amount of compensation, if any, such application is to be at all made and must be recorded in the receipt granted showing that the disputed amount of compensation money was accepted under protest. but, the mere fact that the words' under protest' are not written at the time of payment of compensation to the claimant will not prove that no protest was made. Thus where the application for payment clearly states that the payment was sought for is not sufficient to held that the party had waived the right to apply for reference. Law only requires that the claimant has not accepted payment without protest. If the claimant actually makes an application for receiving the amount or payment under protest and, in pursuance of or following that application, payment is made, and the claimant endorses his receipt of payment on the back of the said application, it would hardly be reasonable to say that the claimant waived his protest and accepted the payment without protest. Under section 17 of the Act the only requirement for the person interested who had not accepted the award was to move a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter referred for the determination of the Court. If the amount is accepted only under protest and application is filed in time, Land Acquisition Officer is bound to refer the matter to Court and he cannot adjudicate it. But, I am of the opinion that it is the statutory duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to see that only if the award amount is not accepted otherwise than under protest and application is filed in time, the matter is referred to Court under section 18 of the Act. If the award amount i s accepted not under protest, he cannot refer the matter under section 18 and if he refers the same, he shall be guilty of violating the provisions of law. 4. If the award amount i s accepted not under protest, he cannot refer the matter under section 18 and if he refers the same, he shall be guilty of violating the provisions of law. 4. In Ajit Singh's case referred to earlier, it was held that as the appellant filed reference application on the same day it was held that the protest of the award is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. Facts are not discussed in detail. However, it is clear that if the reference application is filed on the same day, protest is manifest. 5. In Varkey Pathrose v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLT 10) it was held that the second proviso to section 3 3(2) of the Act categorically provides that no person who has received the amount, otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 20. The proviso prohibits the making of an application if he receives the amount without making any protest. Therefore it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer need refer an application under section 18 only if the award amount is not accepted or accepted under protest and application is filed in time. Supreme Court has recently clarified the legal position in Wardington Lyngdoh and Others v. Collector, Mawkyrwat (AIR 1995 SC 2340), Apex Court observed as follows : "It will thus be clear that the persons interested in the land are entitled to receive compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11 under protest and entitled to object to the compensation determined by the Collector. No person who had received the amount otherwise than under protest should be entitled to make the application under section 18. In other words, the receipt of the amount under protest is a condition precedent to make an application under section 18 within the limitation prescribed under the provision to sub-section (2) of section 18 together with the grounds on which the objections have been taken. Thereon the Collector is enjoined to make a reference to the Civil Court with the statement in the manner stated in Section 19." Therefore, it is clear that on the facts of each case it should be proved that the amount was received with protest. Mere averment that the amount was received under protest orally is not enough. Thereon the Collector is enjoined to make a reference to the Civil Court with the statement in the manner stated in Section 19." Therefore, it is clear that on the facts of each case it should be proved that the amount was received with protest. Mere averment that the amount was received under protest orally is not enough. In this case, even though petitioner affirms that the amount was paid under protest, there is no such protest recorded. There is no other circumstances also to show that the amount was received under protest. It was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that on the same day others also were tendered compensation and whoever protested, their protections were registered. Here, petitioner failed to show that the amount was received under protest. Hence respondent was justified in rejecting the reference application. 6. As the files were produced before me, I have perused the same. It is seen that petitioner received the award amount by receipt in Form D No. 7641. There is no protest recorded. In receipt Nos. 7644 and 7645 it is seen recorded by the recipients who received the amount as per same Award 2/96 that the amount is received under protest. In the files at page 659 statement in Malayalam signed by the petitioner, it is seen that before receiving the amount petitioner was informed that if he want to make a reference under Section 18, he should receive the amount under protest. Wherever amount was received under protest it was specifically recorded. Therefore, it is clear that amount was received without any protest. Hence Land Acquisition Officer was right in not referring the matter under Section 18. The Original Petition fails and hence dismissed.