Judgment :- 1. The subject matter of this writ petition is site bearing No.169 in Sy.Nos.142/1, 156, 158 and 155 of Jigani Village, Anekal Taluk, measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. The petitioner contends that she had purchased the said site under a deed of conveyance at Annexure ‘A’ dated 12.2.1985 from M/s. Man-Jog Builders. The said site along with certain adjacent lands were acquired by the State Government. The preliminary notification for acquisition of the said land was issued on 28.2.2002. This was followed by a declaration dated 3.9.2003 vesting the land in the State Government for the establishment of an industrial area by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short ‘the Board’). The petitioner was not the notified kathedar. She was represented by her General Power of Attorney Holder in these proceedings. She made an application dated 15.12.2006 for payment of compensation in respect of the said site on the basis of the conveyance deed at Annexure ‘A’. The parties have entered into an agreement as per Annexure ‘R1’ dated 25.4.2007 and compensation has been paid in terms of the said agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’). She made an application as per Annexure ‘B’ dated 2.5.2007 seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court. The said application was rejected by the first respondent as per the endorsement at Annexure ‘F’ dated 4.3.2010. therefore, she has filed this writ petition for quashing the proceedings dated 12.7.2002 vide Annexure ‘J’ insofar as the site in question is concerned and for a direction to the second respondent to fix the market value of the site at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per sq. ft. 2. The first respondent has filed statement of objections opposing the writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard in the proceedings at Annexure ‘J’ whereby the market value of the property was determined. It is argued that she is entitled for award of higher compensation. She has received the compensation as per the agreement at Annexure ‘R2’ dated 25.4.2007 under protest. Therefore, her application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the LA Act’) seeking reference was maintainable. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in ASHWANI KUMAR DHINGRA VS. She has received the compensation as per the agreement at Annexure ‘R2’ dated 25.4.2007 under protest. Therefore, her application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the LA Act’) seeking reference was maintainable. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in ASHWANI KUMAR DHINGRA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB- AIR 1992 SC 974 and submits that when the petitioner has accepted the award amount under protest, she does not loose the right to seek reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in the application dated 15.12.2006, the petitioner has sought for award of compensation without submitting any documents. Considering the fact that she had purchased the site under the deed of conveyance at Annexure ‘A’, the compensation was determined by the Price Advisory Committee as per Annexure ‘J’ dated 12.7.2002. The petitioner represented by her General Power of Attorney Holder and the respondents have entered into an agreement as per Annexure ‘R1’ dated 25.4.2007 under Section 29(2) of the Act whereby she has agreed to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.9,73,500/-per acre. In the agreement, though the petitioner has stated that she is receiving the compensation under protest, the intention gathered from the recitals of the agreement and her subsequent conduct suggests that she has agreed to receive the compensation in full and final settlement of her claim. In the agreement, it is agreed that she is not entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation either for the land or for the structures standing thereon or for the benefit arising from the property. She has also executed indemnity bond on the same day agreeing not to approach the Civil Court seeking additional compensation and that, if it is found that she is not the owner of the property, she will refund the entire compensation amount. She has received the compensation without any protest. Her application seeking reference at Annexure ‘B’ has been rejected by the first respondent as per the endorsement at Annexure ‘F’ dated 4.3.2010. She has not challenged the validity of the said endorsement. Therefore, she is not entitled to challenge the proceedings of Price Advisory Committee at Annexure ‘J’. 5. She has received the compensation without any protest. Her application seeking reference at Annexure ‘B’ has been rejected by the first respondent as per the endorsement at Annexure ‘F’ dated 4.3.2010. She has not challenged the validity of the said endorsement. Therefore, she is not entitled to challenge the proceedings of Price Advisory Committee at Annexure ‘J’. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that after vesting of the land under Section 28(5) of the Act, the petitioner has filed an application dated 15.12.2006 requesting the respondents for award of compensation on the basis of conveyance deed at Annexure ‘A’. Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 provides for determination and payment of compensation by agreement. It states that where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. Where no such agreement has been reached between the parties, the State Government has to refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 29. Thus, where the compensation is determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, there is no question of referring the matter to the Civil Court for determination of quantum of compensation. 7. In STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER VS. SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA BIRADR AND OTHERS-2005 AIR SCW 1775, the Apex Court was considering the question as to whether an application filed under Section 18 of the LA Act for reference was maintainable after determination of compensation in terms of the consent award? It has been held that the condition precedent for maintaining application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is non-acceptance of the award by the awardee. It has been held that the condition precedent for maintaining application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is non-acceptance of the award by the awardee. Hence, when the consent awards were passed, statements were also made by the respective villagers declaring that they would not approach any Court for enhancement of the compensation for any other reason, the applications in terms of Section 18 of the Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference to the Civil Court for determination of quantum of compensation, were not maintainable. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that she has signed the agreement ‘under protest’. The term ‘under protest’ is commonly used to refer to a payment made subject to a dispute. It is used in written statements that indicate for the record that someone is performing an obligation reluctantly. Simply writing ‘under protest’ on a contract or other document associated with an obligation is usually not enough. When something is performed under protest, it means that the person performing the obligation may register an objection later. The nature of protest must be articulated in a written document. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, the following meanings have been assigned to the term ‘under protest’: “Payment made under protest. The phrase signifies a payment of money accompanied by a declaration that the demand is illegal or in excess of what is justly due, and implying the need of a future rectification. The value of the phrase “under protest” is to safeguard the position of the person who makes the payment and to ensure that it may not be said that the payment he made was a voluntary one.” 9. The Price Advisory Committee has recommended payment of compensation for the acquired lands under Section 29(2) of the Act. On the basis of the said recommendations, the petitioner and the State Government have entered into an agreement as per Annexure ‘R1’ dated 25.4.2007. Some of the clauses relevant for the purpose of this case are as under: “WHEREFORE, the parties herein have mutually agreed on the compensation amount of Rs.9,73,500/-lakhs per acre of land, which amount is inclusive of cost of land solatium, interest, additional market value, etc., and the owner has agreed to execute an indemnity bond appended hereto. Some of the clauses relevant for the purpose of this case are as under: “WHEREFORE, the parties herein have mutually agreed on the compensation amount of Rs.9,73,500/-lakhs per acre of land, which amount is inclusive of cost of land solatium, interest, additional market value, etc., and the owner has agreed to execute an indemnity bond appended hereto. Also under protest received the amount.” Some of the other clauses relevant for the purpose of this case are asunder: “3. The rate of Rs.9,73,000/-lakhs per acre of land is inclusive of the land, solatium interests, additional market value, etc. The owner is not entitled to anything on and above the aforesaid amount of Rs.26,808/-. 4. The payment of the compensation to the owner for the schedule property is towards full and final settlement. The owner is not entitled to seek the reference for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 either for the land or for the structures standing thereon or any benefit arising from the schedule property.” 10. It is well settled that while construing a document, it is always necessary to find the intention of the party executing it. The intention has to be gathered from the recitals and the terms in the entire document and from the surrounding circumstances. How the parties or even their representatives in interest treated the deed in question may also be relevant. {See PUZHAKKAL KUTTAPU VS. C.BHARGAVI AND OTHERS- AIR 1977 SC 105 }. 11. Keeping in mind the above legal principles, let us now examine as to whether the application of the petitioner seeking reference is maintainable merely because of the inclusion of the term ‘under protest’ in the agreement. The agreement has been signed by the petitioner represented by her power of attorney holder and also by the respondents and attested by two witnesses. In furtherance of the agreement, the petitioner has filed an indemnity bond dated 25.4.2007 undertaking not to seek reference for enhanced compensation amount. She has further undertaken to refund the amount received by her if it is established that she is not the owner of the property. The said bond has also been signed by the petitioner represented by her power of attorney holder, the respondents and two witnesses. She has further undertaken to refund the amount received by her if it is established that she is not the owner of the property. The said bond has also been signed by the petitioner represented by her power of attorney holder, the respondents and two witnesses. The petitioner has produced documents in support of her claim that she is the owner of the acquired site along with her letter dated 13.9.2006. She has received the compensation under Annexure ‘R2’ receipt dated 25.4.2007 without any protest. The application filed by the petitioner seeking reference has been rejected by the first respondent as per the endorsement at Annexure ‘F’ dated 4.3.2010. She has not chosen to challenge the said endorsement. Though in the agreement, it is stated that the amount has been received under protest, the subsequent clauses disclose that the payment of compensation is towards full and final settlement of the claim. The petitioner has not clarified the nature of objection for receipt of the compensation. I am of the view that the intention of the petitioner gathered from various terms in the agreement at Annexure ‘R1’, her subsequent conduct of executing an indemnity bond and submission of the application dated 13.9.2006 along with the title deeds of the site in question, the receipt of the award amount as per Annexure ‘R2’ without protest, clearly indicates that she has received the compensation amount in full and final settlement of her claim. Therefore, quashing the proceedings at Annexure ‘J’ or directing the second respondent to fix the market value at a higher rate does not arise at this stage. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the LA Act for reference after determination of compensation under Section 29(2) of the Act has been rightly rejected by the first respondent as it was not maintainable. 12. In ASWANI KUMAR DHINGRA’s case (supra), the Apex Court was considering a case where in a writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the compensation amount without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition. Thus, the petitioners withdraw the compensation after express permission of the Court. 12. In ASWANI KUMAR DHINGRA’s case (supra), the Apex Court was considering a case where in a writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the compensation amount without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition. Thus, the petitioners withdraw the compensation after express permission of the Court. In this backdrop, the Apex Court has held that acceptance of compensation under protest was not done, with a view to safeguard his right to challenge the acquisition itself but to safeguard his right to require the matter being referred by the Collector determination of the Court in relation to matters mentioned in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. This decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant writ petition. 13. I do not find any merit in this case. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.