JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. 1. The Petitioners' land was acquired and an award was passed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on 10-2-1986. The Petitioners came to know of the same on 4-7-1986 and presented an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference and enhancement of the compensation. As there was no communication to the Petitioners they sent Anr. communication to the Land Acquisition Officer on 4-6-1993 referring to the earlier representation and requesting for a reference in accordance with the earlier representation. A communication was sent to the Petitioners stating that the application for reference had already been rejected by the then Land Acquisition Officer and no action could be taken now. That communication was dated 8-9-1993. The Petitioners, filed this writ petition on 3-2-1995 for issue of mandamus to the Respondents to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law. 2. The contention of the Respondents is that even in 1986, when an application for reference was made, it was rejected on the ground that the Petitioners had taken the payment without any protest. It is also contended that the communication having been sent in 1993 to the effect that the application had already been rejected, the Petitioners had come to this Court only in February, 1995 and, therefore, the petition should not be entertained. 3. The original register for payments was brought to us. We find that the amount had been received by the Petitioners but there was no entry with regard to any protest having been made by them, whereas there are entries registering the protest by mentioning "U.P." with regard to Ors. . However, in our opinion that will not preclude the Petitioners from seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act if they had approached the Land Acquisition Collector in time. In this case, the Petitioner got the communication of the award only in July, 1986 and in August, 1986 they have presented an application through an advocate Shri Bhagat Ram for making a reference The original application dated 12-8-1986 has been produced before us by the Respondents In the said application there is an endorsement at the bottom, which reads as follows: The land owner has not taken payment under protest. The case is not required to be sent to court. The case is not required to be sent to court. Hence the case may be rejected Hence rejected. 4. There is nothing on record to show whether this endorsement was communicated either to the Petitioners or to their counsel Shri Bhagat Ram. The date on which the endorsement was made does not also appear on the document. In such circumstances, we proceed on the footing that the rejection of the application was not communicated to the Petitioners till September, 1993, when the Petitioners sent second application requesting for a reference. 5. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners should be given an opportunity to prove the market value and get adequate compensation in accordance with law. There has been no fault on the part of the Petitioners in approaching the Court after such a long time after the acquisition proceedings were completed. 6. In such circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued directing the Respondents to make a reference to the concerned District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law There will be no order as to costs.