The acceptance and acting upon an award by a petitioner preclude the claim of the award being a nullity, and belated questioning of the award's validity lacks merits.

1. This is a petition to quash Exts. P1, P3, and P4 as well as the award dated 30 81963 (which is not produced with the petition). The petitioner is the only son and legal representative of Ouseph who died on 7 31953. Proceedings were initiated for the acquisition of property which belonged to Ouseph. Notice under S.3 of the Land Acquisition Act had apparently been issued but there is no reference to that notice in the petition. It is not known when that notice was issued or to whom it was issued and by whom it was accepted. No question has been raised in the petition as regards the validity of that notice. The question raised is as to the subsequent proceedings. A notice issued under S.9 of the Land Acquisition Act and addressed to the deceased Ouseph was acknowledged by the petitioner's wife on 16 91962. Immediately thereafter i. e., on 19 91962, the petitioner filed a claim before the District Collector in terms of S.9. The claim petition was read out to me by the Government Pleader. It is stated by the petitioner in that petition that being the only son and legal representative of the deceased, he was entitled to the value of the land and the building thereon. He also stated what value was payable for that property. The award was made by the Collector on 30-8-1963. Notice of the award in terms of S.12 (2) was issued on 19-11-1963. This was accepted by the petitioner on 28-11-1963. On 31-10-1968 possession of the property was handed over by the petitioner to the authorities. On 13-3-1969 a joint petition was filed by the petitioner and his mother. In that petition-it has been read out to me by the Government Pleader it is specifically stated that apart from the petitioner and his mother no one else had any claim in the property. The petitioner and his mother claimed enhanced compensation and requested for a reference of the matter to the court in terms of S.20. They also requested for payment of the amount awarded subject to their objections. The amount was at their request paid to the Advocate and was received by him on their behalf under protest. The request for reference was rejected by the District Collector by Ext. P1 dated 29121973 and Ext. P3 dated 4 51976. The Special Tahsildar also wrote to the petitioner by Ext. P4 that their request for reference could not be accepted. The reason given by the respondents for refusing to make a reference under S.20 was that the application dated 13-3-1969 was hopelessly time-barred

2. Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Bhaskaran Nambiar submits that although the petition on the face of it is time barred and the request for reference is not maintainable, the award itself is a nullity as it was made against a dead person and it is therefore incapable of enforcement. He says that Exts. P1, P3 and P4 are of no effect because they relate to the operation of an award which is a nullity. I do not agree for a moment.

3. A preliminary notification had been issued under S.3. If there was any objection on the part of any person interested in the property it was open to him to raise the objection in terms of S.S. Such objections have to be filed within 30 days of the publication of the notice. (See R.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules). Once the stage for filing objections under S.5 is over it is not open to any person to raise any objection to the acquisition of the land itself. Notice is issued under S.9 to give an opportunity to persons interested in the land to state the nature of their interest and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation and their objection, if any, to the measurements made under S.B. This opportunity was made use of by the petitioner by filing his claim on 19-9-1962. S.12(2) provides for notice of the award to persons interested in the property acquired. A notice was issued on 19-11-1963 but it was addressed to the deceased Ouseph as his name appeared on the Thandapper. This notice was accepted by the petitioner on 28-11-1963. Some years la