Biswas, J. - (1.) By this writ petition dated March 9th, 2006 the two petitioners are o questioning an order of the special land acquisition officer dated March 9th, 1999. In my view, on the ground of delay alone this writ petition should be dismissed. Even otherwise, I do not find any merit in it.
(2.) In the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Section 4 notification published on June 16th, 1995, the award was made by the Collector on October 20th, 1997. Alleging that he wrongfully excluded the structures while determining the amount of compensation, the petitioners moved this Court by filing a writ petition. By order dated February 27th, 1998 that writ petition was disposed of directing the Collector to ascertain whether any structure was in existence. Consequently he made the impugned order holding that structures existing had been rightly excluded. He noted that the petitioners purchased the land from their father and raised the structures after publication of the Section 4 notification.
(3.) The question is whether after making award the Collector was empowered to reopen it either on the basis of the representation made by the petitioners alleging unjust determination, or in terms of the order of this Court dated February 27th, 1998. Counsel submits that in view of provisions in Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Collector not only possessed the power to reopen the award, but was also under an obligation to reopen it for increasing the amount of compensation.;