Judgment :- The petitioner who was claimant in LAR. No. 22 of 1997, a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act challenges Ex. P4 judgment of the reference court declining to answer the reference on the reason that the reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector is not a valid one. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 5-4-1998 and the Land Acquisition officer awarded land value for wet lands at the rate of Rs. 454/- per Acre and Rs. 2137/- per Acre for dry lands. The petitioner claims that he received the award amount under protest and requested the L.A Officer to make a reference to the court of the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for the acquired property. He submits that the L.A officer accordingly referred the matter and that was how LAR No. 23/97 came to be registered on the files of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Chertahla. The petitioner submits that in the first instance the learned Subordinate judge closed the reference by default of the claimant and this court under Ext. P2 judgment ordered restoration of the reference. On restoring the reference as ordered, the reference court has passed the impugned judgment after taking evidence holding that the reference is not a valid one since the application for reference submitted by the petitioner was hopelessly time barred. To decide so, the learned Subordinate judge relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Pathootty V. District Collector, 2004(3) KLT 348 wherein it is held that even if the Land Acquisition Collector refers the matter, the reference court is duty bound to see whether the statutory conditions laid down in 18 have been complied with and that only if the reference is found to be valid, need the court exercise jurisdiction positively. 2. On considering the writ petition for admission the Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the respondent and I directed him to seek instructions from the Land Acquisition officer concerned as to which was the application on the basis of which the reference leading to LAR No. 23/97 was made by him. Govt. Pleader was also directed to make available all files relating to the acquisition of the petitioner’s property. I simultaneously directed the Registrar to ensure that the lower court records reach this court. Govt. Pleader was also directed to make available all files relating to the acquisition of the petitioner’s property. I simultaneously directed the Registrar to ensure that the lower court records reach this court. On perusal of the LCR it was seen that the petitioner had not filed formal application for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act within the statutory time limit. The file revealed receipt dated 20-4-1982 issued by the petitioner to the LA officer while receiving the awarded compensation. It was also seen that the receipt incorporated the petitioner’s protest to the compensation determined by the LA Officer and a statement that the compensation received is inadequate. Since it was felt that one of the questions to be decided in this case may be whether the receipt dated 20-4-1982 could be construed as an application for reference the counsel for the petitioner was specifically directed to cite all available judicial precedents on the point and accordingly the case was posted to 4-11-2008 for hearing. 3. Sri. K.G. Pavithran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Govt. Pleader have addressed me extensively. Sri. K.G. Pavithran would refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in R. Prasad & Others V. Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi, AIR 2007(NOC) 931 (Del.) and also to the judgment of this court in Annamma Chacko V. Land Acquisition Officer, 1981 KLT 36 and submit that courts are expected to take an extremely liberal view when it comes to construing applications for reference. Extensive properties belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the Government and the compensation paid by the LA officer is meager. According to the learned counsel there were every justification for construing the receipt dated 20-4-1982 issued by the petitioner as an application for reference since the protest of the petitioner to the adequacy of the compensation had been clearly raised and the petitioner had also stated that the value determined by the LA Officer was below the market value of the property. When the attention of the counsel was drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Antony V. State of Kerala, 2005(1) KLT 583 the learned counsel would submit that in that case also there was no formal application for reference and what the Division Bench had done was to construe a letter submitted by the land owner expressing dissatisfaction regarding the market value determined by the LA officer as request for reference. The petitioner is an illiterate person and therefore there was warrant for bestowing benevolence and indulgence upon him. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel to Ext. P4 another judgment of the very same Sub Court authored by another Sub judge. Counsel submitted that in that case which pertained to the acquisition of another item of property pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification substantial enhancement had been awarded by the court. The situation which will result if the impugned judgment is not interfered with is that there will be inequality between similarly placed persons in the matter of compensation for properties which were treated similar by the LA Officer. 4. Sri. Basant Balaji learned Govt. Pleader would resist all the submissions of Mr. Pavithran. Strong reliance was placed by him on the judgment of this court in Antony v. State of kerala, 2005(1) KLT 583. The learned Govt. pleader argued that the present case is easily distinguishable on facts from Antony’s case. He submitted that in Antony’s case there was a request to the Land Acquisition Officer to award a higher value at the rate of Rs. 1500/- and that request was construed by the Division Bench as a request seeking reference to the Court, since court alone had the power to award higher value. In the present case such a request is absent. He pointed out that the file contains another letter by the petitioner wherein his request is only that the compensation amount be paid to him by cheque. The Land Acquisition officer has made the present reference after a long period of 15 years on the basis of a time barred application from the petitioner. Time barred application should have been rejected and the reference made acting on that application is invalid. The Land Acquisition officer has made the present reference after a long period of 15 years on the basis of a time barred application from the petitioner. Time barred application should have been rejected and the reference made acting on that application is invalid. The Division Bench had held in Antony’s case that there should be an application or a written request to refer the matter though the written request can be contained in a letter given within time provided under section 18(1). 5. I have very anxiously considered the rival submission addressed at the bar in the light of the various precedents cited before me by the learned counsel on either sides. The judgments of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in R. Prasad’s Case, AIR 2007 NOC 931 Delhi cannot be of assistance to the petitioner. That was a case where there was a letter addressed by a representative body of the owners of the acquired properties wherein they had stated that they are seeking legal remedy for enhancement of compensation. In the instant case the receipt dated 20-4-1982 which is the only material submitted within the time limit for being construed as a request for reference just contains a statement that the compensation awarded is inadequate and that the amount is being received under protest. The receipt does not contain any statement to the effect that legal action is to be initiated for enhancing the compensation and much less a request for reference under section 18 to the court. 6. In thejudgment of this court in Annamma Chacko’s case (1981 KLT 36) the question which arose was whether the compensation amount awarded by the officer had been received by the parties under protest. In that case there was a written application for reference which was filed on time. This court taking the view that the provisions of the Act should be permitted to be liberally used for securing a reasonable compensation and that a rigid approach to the provisions is neither helpful nor desirable, held that an application for reference already made can be deemed to be recording protest regarding the compensation which is received subsequently. In other words what has been held by this court in that judgment is that protest can be lodged through an application for reverence submitted just prior to receiving the awarded compensation. In other words what has been held by this court in that judgment is that protest can be lodged through an application for reverence submitted just prior to receiving the awarded compensation. The judgment in Annamma Chacko’s case also cannot come to the petitioner’s rescue. 7. The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Special Tashildar, Land Acquisition, Yerragunta V. K. Reddy, AIR 1990 A.P. 124 to a certain extent supports the arguments of Sri. K.G. Pavithran. In that case a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Sri. k. Ramaswamy, (who was later elevated to the Supreme court) would hold that when the claimant receives the amount offered under the award under protest and expresses his intention that the compensation determined is not adequate and commensurate to the prevailing market rate, it is implicit therefrom that he is seeking a reference under section 18. His Lordship held that what is required is only substantial compliance of the provision of section 18(1). It is not clear on a reading of the judgment as to what exactly was the form of the request in writing made by the claimant in that case. But it is discernible that in that case there was only a letter through which the land owner registered his protest regarding the adequacy of the amount awarded and had also stated therein that the compensation awarded was not commensurate with the prevailing market rate. If that judgment were a binding precedent, perhaps the receipt dated 20-4-1982 could be construed as an application for reference. But I find that the Division Bench of this Court in Antony’s case (2005(1) KLT 583) has approved the judgment in Kamalakshy V. District collector, 1998 (2) KLT 898 and reiterated that two essential conditions are to be fulfilled, (1) the person interested has not accepted the award and (2) there should be a written application to the collector by the party who accepted the award amount under protest, requiring the Collector to refer the matter for determination of the Court with reference to the amount of compensation. Their Lordships of the Division Bench go on to hold that for making a reference there are three essential conditions to be complied with, i.e., the amount should three essential conditions to be complied with, i.e., the amount should have been received under protest; an application for reference should have been filed; and the application filed should be within the time prescribed. The Division Bench held: “A mere endorsement in the cheque that the amount is received under protest, or a mere receipt of the amount under protest, or an oral protest that the amount is received under protest, is not enough and cannot be construed as an application for reference. There should be an application or a written request to refer the matter to the Court, for enhancement of compensation, with grounds for the same. After receipt of the amount under protest, if an application is received for enhancement of compensation, within the time prescribed under S.18(2), with grounds for the same, it can be construed that the applicant is seeking a reference under S.18 of the Act. In this case, the application filed within the time limit, after receiving the amount under protest; seeking enhancement of compensation in tune with the market value of the land at the time of acquisition is only an application for reference”. In the letter which was considered by the Division Bench, there was not only a statement that the amount is inadequate but also a further request that the prevailing market value at the rate of Rs. 1500/- should be allowed. The learned Division Bench rightly construed that letter as an application seeking a reference to the court since the awarding officer had no jurisdiction to grant enhancement and could have only facilitated grant of enhancement by referring the matter to the civil court. I do not find any request in the receipt dated 20-4-1982 issued by the petitioner for enhanced land value. Therefore in my opinion it is not possible to construe the above receipt as an application for reference under section 18. 8. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot go unnoticed. I do not find any request in the receipt dated 20-4-1982 issued by the petitioner for enhanced land value. Therefore in my opinion it is not possible to construe the above receipt as an application for reference under section 18. 8. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot go unnoticed. It is the petitioner’s case in the writ petition that it is considering his request for making a reference under section 18 to the court that the Land Acquisition officer referred under section 18 to the court that the Land Acquisition officer referred the matter to the Sub Court, Cherthala leading to the registration of LAR. No. 23/97 on the files of that court. That request was submitted by the petitioner only on 1-8-97. This will be clear from the reference letter dated 23-8-1997 sent by the LA officer to the Subordinate Judge’s Court. It is clear on a reading of this letter that it is considering the petitioner’s application dated 1-8-1997 that the reference was actually made by the LA Officer. The application was clearly time barred. Having admitted that it is considering a specific application for reference under section 18 that the reference was made, the petitioner is not entitled to request that the receipt dated 20-4-1982 should be liberally construed as an application for reference. The application for reference acted upon by the LA officer was clearly time barred. 9. I do notice that the stakes involved in this case is somewhat heavy from the petitioner’s view point. Considering the appealing submissions of Mr. Pavithran for indulgence I asked Govt. pleader whether the Government will agree for considering the receipt dated 20-4-1982 as an application for reference subject to a rider that even if the reference court ultimately enhances the compensation, the enhanced amount will not carry statutory interest under Section 28 for the period of 15 years from the date of award till 23-8-1997. The Government pleader’s answer was in the negative. I also feel that in the absence of any convincing explanation from the side of the petitioner regarding the inordinate delay of 15 years in the matter, it will not be proper to interfere with a reasoned order written by a subordinate Judge invoking the Vistorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. The result is that the writ petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. No costs.