JUDGMENT : J.P. Gupta, J. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 13.11.2003 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Seoni (MP), in MJC No. 52/02, arising out of Reference Application filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the award dated 28.2.2001 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Seoni. 2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was the owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 106/42, area 0.01 hectare ( as one plot ad-measuring 900 Sq. Ft. ) in which house was also made, situated at village Doorli Chhatpur, Tahsil and District Seoni (MP), which was acquired by the respondent no. 2/State for construction of the National Highway No. 7 by a notification published in official gazette dated 5.5.2000 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 28.2.2001, in which market value of the land was determined Rs. 1436/- at the rate of Rs.1,43,635/- per hectare and market value of the house was determined Rs.33,539/- and total compensation was awarded accordingly along with other statutory benefits. The award was challenged by the respondent no.1 by submitting an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector, which was referred to the District Court, Seoni, in which the respondent no.1 claimed that the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very less. The acquired land was not the agricultural land and it was a part of the residential area, in which, house of the respondent no. 1 was made, therefore, its market value should have been determined at the rate of Rs.40/- per Sq. Ft. and costs of the construction of the house be determined at the rate of Rs.53,804/-. Accordingly, with all statutory benefits, an award for compensation be passed. 3. On behalf of the appellant, it was stated that compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and does not require any interference. 4. Learned court below after recording the evidence passed the impugned judgment holding the total market value of the land Rs.23,500/- and the market price of the house was confirmed as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer inasmuch as respondent no. 4. Learned court below after recording the evidence passed the impugned judgment holding the total market value of the land Rs.23,500/- and the market price of the house was confirmed as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer inasmuch as respondent no. 1 withdrew his claim for enhancement of compensation with regard to the house during trial before the Reference court. Accordingly, learned court below directed to pay the amount of compensation along with other statutory benefits. Against the aforesaid judgment, appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to law. The learned court below has enhanced the amount of compensation in arbitrary manner without considering the facts of the case and evidence and the law. It is also submitted that the amount of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was received by the respondent no.1 without any protest; therefore, he has no right to make reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the impugned judgment be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 6. On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is submitted that the appeal is groundless. The compensation determined by the Reference Court is not on higher side. It requires more enhancement in view of the evidence adduced by the respondent no.1 and it is not correct to say that the compensation was received under protest. In the reference letter, the Land Acquisition Officer had itself mentioned that the amount of compensation was received under protest. Apart from it, filing of application under section 18 for reference is itself an evidence to show that the compensation was received under protest. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the contention advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record in this case following questions arise for determination :- i. Whether, the market value of the acquired land determined by the learned court below is arbitrary and requires any interference ? ii. Whether the respondent no.1 has received the compensation amount without protest and, therefore, the respondent no.1 has no right to challenge the award ? iii. Relief and cost ? 2. Question No.1 : The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the total market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,43,635/- per hectare. Respondent no. ii. Whether the respondent no.1 has received the compensation amount without protest and, therefore, the respondent no.1 has no right to challenge the award ? iii. Relief and cost ? 2. Question No.1 : The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the total market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,43,635/- per hectare. Respondent no. 1 Chain Singh (PW-1) has submitted copy of sale deed, by which, he purchased the land, a part of the acquired land on 22.2.1994 in Rs.11,500/- and the sale deed has been proved by his own statement. Learned lower court on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed calculated total price of the land in the year 1994 to be Rs.11,500/- and the land was acquired on 5.5.2000. Considering the facts of escalation in the price of the land per year, the learned lower court in the present case for more than six years considered 100% escalation in the price and accordingly, determined total market value of the land to be Rs.23,500/-. Thus, the approach of the learned lower court is not arbitrary. The learned lower court has considered the rate of escalation per year within 10 to 15 per cent with cumulative effect and it is permissible as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex court in the case of Prahlad Ram v. Huda, AIR 2014 SC 793 . Relevant para 15 reads as under :- 15. It is also evident from the law referred to herein above that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15 per cent per year in the market value of the land may be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiring authority prove otherwise. 2. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in absence of other evidence it cannot be said that the learned lower court has arbitrarily determined the market value of the acquired land. The learned lower court has determined the market value in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court. Hence, the objection of the appellant in this regard is not sustainable and rejected. It is held that the learned court below has appropriately determined the market value of the acquired land and the question no. 1 is answered accordingly. 3. Hence, the objection of the appellant in this regard is not sustainable and rejected. It is held that the learned court below has appropriately determined the market value of the acquired land and the question no. 1 is answered accordingly. 3. Question No.2: Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the respondent no.1 received the compensation amount without protest, hence he has no right to challenge the award passed by the L.A.O. by making an application under section 18 of the Act for reference to the Civil Court. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Dhingra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 974 = 1992 (2) SCC 592 , in which the validity of proceeding of acquisition was under consideration. The apex court observed in para 10 of the judgment as under :- "10. The acceptance of compensation under protest was not done by the appellant 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 for determination of the Court in relation to the matters mentioned in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is clear from the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the person interested, in order to enable him to seek the remedy of reference can do so only if he does not accept the Award. In order to show that the person concerned had not accepted the Award the claimants accept the compensation only under protest because once the compensation awarded in pursuance of the Award is accepted without protest the person concerned may lose his right of a reference for various matters mentioned in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act." 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has stated that in this case it is not correct that the amount was not received under protest. The reference letter sent by the Land Acquisition Officer, Seoni, dated 16.7.2001 itself contends that the respondent no. 1 received the compensation amount under protest. Therefore, the objection is baseless. Apart from it, it is also stated that the submission of the application under Section 18 of the Act for reference itself reflects protest of the respondent no. 1 for receiving the compensation amount. 1 received the compensation amount under protest. Therefore, the objection is baseless. Apart from it, it is also stated that the submission of the application under Section 18 of the Act for reference itself reflects protest of the respondent no. 1 for receiving the compensation amount. In this case, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1994)4 SCC 67 , wherein it is observed that inasmuch as the appellants have filed an application for reference under section 18 of the Act that will manifest their intention. Therefore, the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. The District Judge and the High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the applicant. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, this Court in the case of Bhagwati Bai and others v. State of M.P. and another, 2004(3) MPLJ 200 , has held that there is no prescribed mode under section 18 of the Act in which method protest should be lodged. Intention has to be gathered from the conduct even if the application has been filed for seeking reference is enough to show the protest. Therefore, the Additional District Judge has gravely erred in law in dismissing the reference on the ground of maintainability. 3. This Court in the case of Kabul Singh v. State of M.P., 2012(4) MPLJ 61 , has held that on the hyper-technical reasons of an express protest not being made, the State cannot deny the land owner the right to seek reference to the Civil Court for a reasonable compensation. Fair administration of the State demands that they bestow objective approach to such a situation and that they shall not deprive the citizen of their property just for hyper-technical reasons. The question whether the protest was expressed or implied did not fall for consideration before the court. Section 31(2) of the Act envisages no particular form of protest. Protest has to be implied in the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere acceptance of the compensation does not deprive the appellants to lodge a protest by way of seeking a reference. Even oral protest by itself is sufficient. 4. Section 31(2) of the Act envisages no particular form of protest. Protest has to be implied in the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere acceptance of the compensation does not deprive the appellants to lodge a protest by way of seeking a reference. Even oral protest by itself is sufficient. 4. Recently, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrashekharan v. Administration of land Acquisition Officer, (2012)12 SCC 133 , held that though accepting compensation under protest is precondition of reference; but reference to court implies that award was not accepted. 5. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court and of this court, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even it shall be deemed that there is no specific proof on record that whether the amount was received under protest or not, the facts that the respondents submitted the application under section 18 of the Act for reference is itself a circumstance which show impliedly that the amount of compensation was received under protest, hence on the aforesaid ground the respondents cannot be deprived to exercise their right to challenge the award passed by the L.A.O. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Ashwani Kumar Dheengra (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case, because in the aforesaid judgment it is only laid down that in order to enable to seek the remedy of reference, receiving of compensation under protest is must. But, how protest to be made, it was not considered and in other judgments mentioned hereinbefore, it is considered that protest may be impliedly and filing of application under section 18 of the Act for reference is also a circumstance to show that the compensation was received under protest and the person cannot be deprived of their right to get determined the appropriate compensation of his property merely on the hyper technical ground as the person has not expressed his protest expressly in writing. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the objection raised by the appellant has no force, hence it is rejected and it is held that the reference application under section 18 is maintainable and the compensation amount was received by the respondent no.1 under protest. Accordingly, question no.2 is answered. 2. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the objection raised by the appellant has no force, hence it is rejected and it is held that the reference application under section 18 is maintainable and the compensation amount was received by the respondent no.1 under protest. Accordingly, question no.2 is answered. 2. Relief and Cost: In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings of the aforesaid questions, the appeal filed by the appellant has no substance, being devoid of merits, it is dismissed with no order as to cost and further directed that the interim order dated 17.2.2004 shall be deemed to be ineffective and if the compensation is not yet paid, be paid as early as possible in accordance with law.