The main legal point established in the judgment is that the omission to serve notices to interested parties did not vitiate the award under the Land Acquisition Act, and the authority of the City Survey Officer to take possession of the land for the State Transport Department was upheld.

( 1 ) THERE seven writ petitions concern the validity of an acquisition proceeding in which a land situate in Marain Timmasagar, in Hbli, to the extent if a little more than four acres, was proposed to be acquised under a preliminary notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquistion act in June 7, 1956, its supplemented by a final notification published on October 12, 1956, and amended by yet another notification published in June 30, 198. The award in those Acquistion proceedings was made on March 21, 1961. On March 22, 1961, the City Survey Officer issued a notice to the petitioners before us, calling upon them to deliver possession of the acquired land to the State Transport Department on April 25, 1961. In there application which were pretended to this Court on April 20, 1961. We are asked to restrain the City Survey Officer and Tahslider, hebli, from taking delivery of possession of the acquired property, and to quash the award made by the Collector, on March 21, 1961.

( 2 ) WE shall first protend to consider the challenge made to the award. The ground in which the award is assailed is that although tpeters were all lessees of the acquired property, holding those bits of property under a lease in their favour by the Imtied Basel Mission Church, Mangalore and therefore, were persons known or believed to be interested in the acquired property, the Collector issued no notices to them property, Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquistion Act.

( 3 ) IT is admitted that no notices were issued to any of the petitioners under the provisions f that sub-section and in defence of that omission, what the Collector has stated in the affidavit which he has p[roduced before us is that they were nit known or believed to be interested in any portion of the acquired property since their names do not find a place in the Property Register.

( 4 ) THE petitioners in Writ Petitions 484. 485, 486, 487, nd 489 of 1961, notwithstanding thge omission on the part of the Collector to serve notices on them did present claims before the collector, claiming the compensation which according to them, was payable. The petitioner in writ Petition , No. 471 of 1961, in addition to the direct claim which he made before the collector, also presented a claim through the church. These petitioner were all awarded compensation which the ?collector considered toi be adequate, and the only person who has not been awarded any compensation and who has not made any claim directly or indirectly to the collector in the petitioner's in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1961.

( 5 ) THE question to be considered is whether in those circumstances , it could be said that the award made by tge Collector is, as contended by Mr. Daratr, void, and therefore, liable to be quashed.

( 6 ) AS pointed out by this Court in Writ Petn. No. 249 of 1959 (Mys), the object in enacting sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Land Acquistion Act is to afraid to persons occupying the land or interested in it to make a claim for compensation so that the Collector night decide the compensation payable to them, and order its payment. If in the making of that claim or from establishment, the omission to serve a notice under sub-section (3) of Section 9 has brought about a hindrance. It is clear that the person who has so prevented from making a claim or from establishment it, has a right to challenge the aware by the adoption of suitable steps for that purpose. It is, however, clear that there is no indexiable rule that an omission and in all circumstances, vititates an award. It is, however, unnecessity to pursue this discussion since, in the circumstances of this case, it is obvious that in the case of every petitions other than the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 488. Of 1961, it could not be said that there was any difficulty presented by the omission to serve them with notice under section 9 (s) in the presentation or establishing of a claim for compensation. Out of the six peti