Judgment P. Devadass, J. 1. This writ appeal has been directed as against the order of the writ court, declining to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to make Reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. 2. The land of the appellant was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a public purpose, in 1997. On 19.06.1998, he was awarded Rs.2,58,917/- as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. According to the appellant, dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded, he received it under protest and requested making of Reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Since it was not complied with, he came forward with the writ petition. The respondents objected to it stating that no such protest was ever made and it is also a stale claim. 4. The writ court not directed the 2nd respondent to make the Reference, on the ground that the factum of protest made was in dispute and that cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and it is also a stale claim. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even mere protest at the time of receiving the amount is enough and it is not necessary that a written protest has to be made. The learned counsel cited STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., SALEM STEEL PLANT vs. SALEM URUKKALAI THITTATHAL NILAM ILLANTHOR SANGAM, SALEM 7 OTHERS [ 2006 (1) M.L.J. 252 D.B.)]. The learned counsel would also contend that in this case right from the time of receiving the award amount, the appellant has continuously protested the quantum of compensation awarded and also pressed for making Section 18 Reference. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that there is no material to show that the appellant had made any protest at the time of receiving the award amount. 7. We have anxiously considered their rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned order of the writ court and the decision cited. 8. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that there is no material to show that the appellant had made any protest at the time of receiving the award amount. 7. We have anxiously considered their rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned order of the writ court and the decision cited. 8. As regards making a request to make a Reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of various High Courts, a Division Bench of this Court in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., SALEM STEEL PLANT vs. SALEM URUKKALAI THITTATHAL NILAM ILLANTHOR SANGAM, SALEM 7 OTHERS [ 2006 (1) M.L.J. 252 ] categorically held that for making a Reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, mere protest, expression of dissatisfaction of the award amount without there being anything in writing is sufficient and the authorities are under obligation to refer the matter to the Court under Section 18(2) of the Act. 9. In this case, a perusal of the materials on record shows that the appellant was continuously urging for making such reference. It is evident from his continuous representations made in December 2004, 13.11.2006, 28.03.2007 and 16.11.2007 that he made protest at the time of receiving the amount. Further, it is sheer common sense that in no case the land owner will be satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the decision cited squarely applies to this case. 10. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. The order of the writ court is set aside. The 2nd respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, will make a Reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the award passed under the Act with respect to the appellant's land acquired under the Act to the concerned Tribunal. It is made clear that this exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.