ORDER
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to refer the proceedings in Award No. 19 of 1986 dated 31-8-1986 relating to the land belonging to the petitioner to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. The petitioner’s land was acquired by invoking the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was passed on 31-8-1986. The notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 15-9-1986. The petitioner made a representation complaining that her lands are very much fertile and valuable and that the prevailing market value was Rs. 150/- per square yard. She also stated in the representation that two crops were grown fetching annual income of Rs. 6,000/- per acre and that the land acquisition proceedings may be dropped or in the alternative they may be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court. As no action has been taken pursuant to her representation she sent reminders and finally got issued lawyer’s notice dated 17-1-1989. The first respondent has issued proceedings dated 21-3-1991 negativing the request of the petitioner to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that is was time barred.
2. Shri Chandraiah, learned Government Pleader states that application for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation was not made by the petitioner in a true sense and such a plea was made only by lawyer’s notice dated 17-1-1989.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent it is categorically stated that no application was filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference for the period from 15-9-1986 to 16-1-1989. It is also stated in the counter that the contention of the petitioner to the effect that she filed a petition on 9-10-1986 seeking reference to Civil Court is not at all true. It is further stated in the counter:
“Her plea of ignorance of rules and her petition dt. 9-10-1986 are not at all true and as such her interference that her protest as expressed above in an application under Section 18 of the Act is not maintainable under law. As submitted above/the endorsement dated 21-3-1991 is justifiable. Her petition dt. 9-10-1986 is only imaginary and not based on facts.”
4. From a reading of the counter what is deducible is that the representation dated 9-10-1986 made by the petitioner to the first respondent is neither specifically denied nor controverted. What is pleaded is that the said representation cannot be construed as an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation.
5. While agreeing with the contention of Mr. Chandraiah, learned Government Pleader that there is no plea in the representation dated 9-10-1986 by the petitioner as regards reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, I hold that the representation dated 9-10-1986 made by the petitioner expressing protest that the prevalent market value is Rs. 150/- per square yard is a sufficient protest within the meaning of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It has to be borne in mind that the Land Acquisition Act mandates compulsory acquisition depriving a citizen of his valuable property and it is a disabling Act and as such it has got to be strictly construed. What Section 18 contemplates is only protest against the quantum of compensation and once protest is expressed, the Land Acquisition Officer is obligated to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. This is more so in view of the fact that the statute does not prescribe any format for making an application. When format is not prescribed and when Section 18 of the Act only contemplates expression of protest over the quantification of the rate of compensation, in whatever fashion and manner protest is expressed, the same is sufficient compliance of the requirements of Section 18 and the matter is referable at once to the Civil Court for determination of proper compensation.
6. In the circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the first respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. This exercise shall be completed by the first respondent within two months from the date receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.