Judgment :- 1. In this revision, the revision petitioners challenge the order of the court below in rejecting the reference made by the first respondent. 2. The land of an extent of 2.62.0 hectares in S.No.1254/2 in Erode Village was acquired and award enquiry was conducted on 5.9.1986 and notice under sections 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.8.1996 and individual notices under section 9(3) and section 10 of the Act were also served and one Chenniappa Gounder appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and expressed his willingness to receive compensation under protest and requested the officer to refer the matter to the court for higher compensation and therefore, the matter was referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated by the legal representatives of the original claimant that the original claimant received the award amount under protest and requested the Acquisition Officer for higher compensation and therefore, there was a valid reference and they are entitled to enhancement of compensation. 3. The second respondent herein contested that as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the reference has to be made immediately after the award has been passed within the specific period by requisition in writing and admittedly, no requisition was made by the claimant in writing after the award was passed and therefore, reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer is bad in law and the court ought not have entertained the application. 4. The court below accepted the case of the second respondent and held that there is no valid reference as, admittedly, there is no representation in writing by the claimant within the period prescribed under the Act after the award was passed. Hence, this revision. 5. It is contended by Mr.Prakasam, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners that the lands of the original claimant was acquired and at the time of enquiry, the claimant appeared and protested the award of compensation and requested the Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for enhancement of compensation and therefore, there was an oral request made by the claimant and that request is sufficient and there is no need for any written representation. Further, he submitted that the Special Tahsildar has also recorded that the claimant requested him to refer the matter to the court for higher compensation and therefore, there is a valid reference. 6. Further, he submitted that the Special Tahsildar has also recorded that the claimant requested him to refer the matter to the court for higher compensation and therefore, there is a valid reference. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that as per section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the court gets the jurisdiction only when a proper reference is made and the reference can be made only when the claimant makes a representation in writing within the period prescribed by the Act and to refer the matter for higher compensation the representation must be made after the award was passed and in this case, admittedly, no written representation was made and the oral representation was also made during the pendency of the enquiry and therefore, that cannot be considered as a request even assuming that oral request is permissible and therefore, the order passed by the court below need not call for interference. He further submitted that a Division Bench of this court, by its order in A.S.Nos.945 and 946 of 2004 dated 2.3.2007, held that for a valid reference, a written requisition is necessary and without written requisition, the officer cannot refer the matter under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. He also relied upon a Full Bench decision in N.RAJARAMAN (DIED) & OTHERS v. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE), GINGEE (2008-2-LW 560) in support of his contention. 7. The matter is no longer res integra. In this case, admittedly, there is no written representation made by the claimant after the award was passed. Only during the enquiry, it was requested by the claimant to refer the matter to the court for higher compensation and on that basis, the matter was referred to court under section 18 of the Act. In similar circumstance, the Honourable Full Bench held in 2008-2-LW 560 as follows:- "In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act, written representation after the award is passed is mandatory and such application is required to be made within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act." 8. As admittedly, no written representation was made after the award was passed, the reference under section 18 is without jurisdiction and that has been rightly held by the court below and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the court below. The revision is devoid of merits. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.