Receipt of compensation under protest is mandatory for a valid land acquisition reference; later protest or filing alone is insufficient.

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, receipt of compensation under protest is a condition precedent for maintainability of a reference under Section 18. The protest must exist at or before receipt of payment; a later protest, including one raised only in the reference application, is ineffective. The protest need not be in writing and may be oral if proved. A subsequent reference application by itself cannot be treated as proof that compensation was received under protest, because that would defeat the statutory bar in the second proviso to Section 31(2).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a reference application under Section 18 is maintainable unless compensation is received under protest; (ii) whether the protest must be lodged at the time of receiving payment and can be made later; (iii) whether the protest must be in writing; and (iv) whether a protest can be inferred merely from the subsequent filing of a reference application.

Issue (i): Whether a reference application under Section 18 is maintainable unless compensation is received under protest.

Analysis: Reading Sections 18, 19, 20 and 31 together, the first proviso to Section 31(2) permits receipt of compensation under protest as to sufficiency, while the second proviso bars a person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest from seeking a reference. The provisions were construed to mean that acceptance of compensation without protest disentitles the claimant from invoking Section 18.

Conclusion: A reference application under Section 18 is not maintainable unless the applicant proves receipt of compensation under protest.

Issue (ii): Whether the protest must be lodged at the time of receiving payment and can be made later.

Analysis: The scheme of Sections 18 and 31 requires the protest to accompany the receipt of payment, or to be made before receipt. A protest first raised after payment, or only in the reference application, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Earlier filing of a reference application may evidence protest only if it is already pending before receipt of payment.

Conclusion: The protest must be lodged at the time of receiving payment or before receipt, and a later protest is not valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the protest must be in writing.

Analysis: Neither Section 18 nor Section 31 prescribes any particular form for protest. The statutory scheme requires proof of protest, but does not mandate that it be reduced to writing. An oral protest, if proved, is sufficient.

Conclusion: The protest need not always be in writing and may be oral.

Issue (iv): Whether a protest can be inferred merely from the subsequent filing of a reference application.

Analysis: The filing of a reference application under Section 18 is a separate statutory requirement and cannot by itself establish that compensation was earlier received under protest. To treat the later application as conclusive proof of prior protest would nullify the second proviso to Section 31(2). Proof of protest must come from evidence of the receipt stage, not from the later application alone.

Conclusion: A protest cannot be inferred merely from the subsequent filing of a reference application.

Final Conclusion: The Court answered the reference by holding that receipt of compensation under protest is mandatory for maintainability under Section 18, that the protest must exist at or before payment, that it may be oral, and that a later reference application alone does not prove protest. The matters were sent back for disposal in accordance with these answers.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Sections 18 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, receipt of compensation under protest is a condition precedent to a valid reference, and such protest must be proved at the time of payment though it need not be in writing.

---