S. Velu Pillai, J.

1. This is a petition by the hereditary trustees of a Devaswom, to quash an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which may be referred to briefly as the 'Act.' The complaint of the petitioners is, that as hereditary trustees, they were not served with notice under Section 9(3) of the Act, and that the award is therefore bad and has to be set aside. The notice under Section 9(3) was issued by the Collector to the Executive Officer of the Devaswom, appointed under a scheme framed pursuant to the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926. Clause 7 of the Scheme provided inter alia, that "the Executive Officer shall represent the temple (Devaswom) in all legal proceedings." Decided cases under Section 9(3) have made it clear, that unless the omission of the Collector to serve notice on any of the parties mentioned in Section 9(3) of the Act is wilful, or fraudulent, or perverse, it does not vitiate the award. The petitioners have not alleged in the affidavit, that the Collector had notice that the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest are the hereditary trustees of the Devaswom. The respondents' counter affidavit has set