Judgment :- 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. 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 later, ie., on 30-10-1968 the petitioner without any objection quietly handed over the property to the authorities. 4. 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 later, ie., on 30-10-1968 the petitioner without any objection quietly handed over the property to the authorities. 4. Under S.20 any person interested in the property is entitled, if he has not accepted the award, to question the same by requesting the Collector to make a reference of the matter for the determination of the Court. The Court to which a reference is made can consider any objection regarding the measurement of the property, the amount of compensation, the person to. whom the amount is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the various persons interested. There is however a time limit prescribed under S.20 for making an application for reference. Such an application has to be made: "(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under sub-section (2) of S.12 or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire." In the present case a joint application was filed by the petitioner and his mother on 13-3-1969 which was many years after the notice of the award was communicated to the petitioner and therefore both under clauses (a) and (b) it was barred. 5. An award is not, as contended by the petitioner's counsel, made against any particular person. An award is made in respect of the property acquired. Notice is issued to all persons interested in the property. The respective claims of such persons are determined by the Collector before making the award. The objections of the persons interested are finally referred to a court for judicial determination. The award itself is not a judicial determination. It is an administrative order in the nature of an offer to persons interested. It is up to them to accept the offer or raise objections. Objections can be raised to the acquisition itself at the earliest stage as contemplated under S.5 read with R.3. Subsequently objections can be raised as to the measurement of the property, the value awarded. It is an administrative order in the nature of an offer to persons interested. It is up to them to accept the offer or raise objections. Objections can be raised to the acquisition itself at the earliest stage as contemplated under S.5 read with R.3. Subsequently objections can be raised as to the measurement of the property, the value awarded. respective claims of persons etc. The award is not made against any persons, but persons alive can claim enhanced compensation, and so can persons representing the estate of deceased. 6. If that is the position, there is no substance in the contention that the award is a nullity because it is made against a dead person. The only question therefore is whether the statute in terms has been complied with. The statute postulates a notice. Notice has been issued. Public notice as contemplated under S.3 and 9 were issued. No question is raised as to the legality of those notices. Individual notice was issued under S.12(2). In the present case it was addressed to Ouseph, but it was accepted by the petitioner and acted upon by him. In his belated request for reference he has clearly stated that the award was accepted by him as having been made in due course by competent authorities. His only objection was as regards the merits of that award, namely, the compensation awarded. This is a strange case of a petitioner waking up to his supposed rights many years after the passing of the award. For the first time in this court he questioned the validity of the award. Not even when he made a request for reference did he question the jurisdiction of the District Collector to pass the award in respect of the property belonging to Ouseph. The petitioner had sufficient notice as required under the Act. In the circumstances this petition is totally devoid of merits. It is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.