JUDGMENT K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner was the owner in possession of 2 and odd acres of property in Chevayur Village. This properly was acquired by the Government for a treatment plant of Calicut Drainage Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 60,160.30 as compensation. Dissatisfied by this award, the petitioner sought for a reference and the reference court by Ext. P1 judgment granted enhancement of compensation by fixing the land value at a higher rate. This judgment was dated 1-10-1982. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per Act 68 of 1984 the petitioner was entitled to get solatium at the rate of 30%. In the impugned judgment the learned Sub Judge granted solatium at the rate of 15%. Petitioner alleges that in view of S.28(2) of the Land Acquisition Act petitioner has got a statutory right to get solatium at the rate of 30% and the 3rd respondent was duly bound to grant such benefit to the petitioner and the failure to do so has adversely affected the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prays that there shall be a declaration to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to get solatium at the rate of 30%; on the market value. 2. Petitioner has also prayed for the benefits under S.23(1A). But at the time when the O. P. came up for hearing counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner is not entitled to that relief. 3. I heard petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader opposed the application contending that the proper remedy of the petitioner was to seek review of the impugned judgment or to file appeal against the judgment and having failed to do so the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs prayed for. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the amended S.23(2) he is entitled to get solatium at the rate of 30%. This provision came into force only on 24-9-84 and at the time when the case was considered by the learned Sub Judge this right was not available to the petitioner and therefore it was not included in the decree. When the reference application was finally disposed of the right now sought for by the petitioner was not available to him. This provision came into force only on 24-9-84 and at the time when the case was considered by the learned Sub Judge this right was not available to the petitioner and therefore it was not included in the decree. When the reference application was finally disposed of the right now sought for by the petitioner was not available to him. By subsequent amendment i.e. by Act 68 of 1984 it was made clear that the provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.23 and S.28 and S.18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after 30th day of April, 1982. The Full Bench in State of Kerala v. Krishnan Nair ( 1991 (2) KLT 693 ) held that enhanced solatium, that is, at the rate of 30% was available to all claimants in which award was passed by the Collector on or after 30th April, 1982. It is true that going by the provisions contained in the Amended Act 68 of 1984 and the various decisions on the point the petitioner may have a legitimate claim to get solatium at the rate of 30%. As the court passed Ext. P1 judgment on 1-10-1982, the petitioner could not be granted this relief. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled for a declaration to that effect and there shall be direction to pay the amount to the petitioner. The decree passed in the reference case became final and conclusive. There was no appeal either by the State or by the petitioner. Once the decree has become final and conclusive it is not possible to challenge the same collaterally. The amended Act came into force on 24-9-1984. That is about two years after the passing of impugned decree. Petitioner did not file appeal against the impugned judgment. Then it is not just and proper for the petitioner to challenge the same collaterally after a period of 8 years. This O. P. was filed on 21-3-1990. The judgment and decree passed should have finality and the litigant should not be allowed to agitate a claim after long lapse of time. Then it is not just and proper for the petitioner to challenge the same collaterally after a period of 8 years. This O. P. was filed on 21-3-1990. The judgment and decree passed should have finality and the litigant should not be allowed to agitate a claim after long lapse of time. The rights once determined cannot be lightly disturbed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under the Art.226 of the Constitution. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought my attention to the decision in O. P. 7032 of 1989-K wherein the learned single Judge was pleased to issue a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to revise an award so as to make in accordance with the amended Act. This decision has no application since the direction in that judgment was only a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to act in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There is nothing wrong in an administrative authority being directed to do a lawful act. Here the petitioner seeks to upset a decision passed by a competent Board which has become final and conclusive. Petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the O. P. Original Petition is dismissed.