JUDGMENT MARLAPALLE, J. :- This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution brings in question the notice dated 12th September, 1989, issued by the Collector, Ahmednagar for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,47,896/- from the petitioner and raised the following questions of law for our considerations: (a) Whether the Divisional Commissioner has the powers to review an order passed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, the Act) passed by the Special Land \ Acquisition Officer. (b) Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself has the powers to review his own order passed under section 28A of the Act for correcting any error apparent, and (c) Whether the petitioner was an interested person in respect of the land admeasuring 32 Ares, acquired from Survey No. 28 of Village Bhingar, Taluka Ahmednagar on the date when the land was acquired? 2. Admittedly, the total land in Survey No. 28 of village Bhingar originally admeasured 1 Hectare 78 Ares. Notification under section 4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 7th December, 1978 for acquisition of the different lands from the said village and it covered 32 Ares land from Survey No. 28. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 12th February, 1981 and finally award came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14th February, 1983 fixing the compensation amount at Rs. 13,248/-. In Survey No. 28 owners of the said acquired land, at the time when the award was passed, were Sakharam Mahadeo Misal (25% share), Kashinath Mahadeo Misal (25% share) and Balkrishna Sakharam Misal (50% share). The possession of the land was taken over before the award was passed and on the strength of the possession receipt, mutation entry bearing No. 2990 came to be effected in the village record on 21st September, 1979 in favour of the State Government through the Executive Manager, Public Works Department. 3. On acquisition of this 32 Ares land from Survey No. 28 and on effecting the mutation entry in favour of the State Government, the Survey number came to be demarcated into two parts viz. Survey No. 28/1 and Survey No. 28/2. The ownership of the land in survey No. 28/2 admeasuring 38 Ares came to be shown in the name of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ahmednagar. Survey No. 28/1 and Survey No. 28/2. The ownership of the land in survey No. 28/2 admeasuring 38 Ares came to be shown in the name of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ahmednagar. Whereas, the balance land admeasuring 1 Hectare 46 Ares fell in Survey No. 28/1 and in the ownership of Sakharam Mahadeo Misal, Kashinath Mahadeo Misal and Balkrishna Sakharam Misal. On 20th July, 1981 land admeasuring 73 Ares from Survey No. 28/1 was sold by the owners to Shri Dhanji Dnyanoba Jadhav and Mahendra Manilal Shah and thus the land in Survey No. 28/1 came to be further demarcated in two different portions viz.28/1B in the name of Dhanaji D. Jadhav and Mahendra Manilal Shah and the second part being 28/1 A in the name of Balkrishna Sakharam Misal and Vitthal Sakharam Misal. It is pertinent to note, at this stage, that Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 1968 came to be decided by way of compromise on 25th November, 1981 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar and half of the share in Survey No. 28/1 went to Balkrishna S. Misal and Vitthal Sakharam Misal, and it is under these circumstances that the ownership of the land admeasuring 73 Ares in Survey No. 28/1 A came in the name of Balkrishna Misal and Vitthal S. Misal. On 5th January, 1984 the owners of the land, admeasuring 73 Ares in Survey No. 28/1A, signed an agreement for sale in favour of the present petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. Notwithstanding the agreement of sale, the lands owners i.e. Balkrishna S. Misal and Vitthal S. Misal on 9th March, 1984 sold 10 Ares land from Survey No. 28/1A to Shri Surjitsingh, Manjitsingh and Charanjitsingh and, therefore, the land further came to be sub-divided in Survey No. 28/1 All and Survey No. 28/1A/2. The land in Survey No. 28/1A/1, admeasures 10 Ares and land in Survey No. 28/1A/2 admeasure 63 Ares and this later part remained in the ownership of Balkrishna Misal and Vitthal Misal. On 9th March, 1984,20 Ares land from Survey No. 28/1A/2 came to be sold to the present petitioner and the balance land of 43 Ares was also sold to her by the same owners on 13th December, 1984. On 9th March, 1984,20 Ares land from Survey No. 28/1A/2 came to be sold to the present petitioner and the balance land of 43 Ares was also sold to her by the same owners on 13th December, 1984. Sale deeds of all these transactions made in favour of Dhanji Dnyanoba Jadhav and Mahendra Manilal Shah, Surjitsingh and others and the present petitioner have been brought on record. These documents undoubtedly suggest that the petitioners ownership for 63 Ares land from Survey No. 28/1A/2 came to be established for the first time only between sale deeds dated 9th March, 1984 and 13th December, 1984. There is no sale deed which shows any connection/interest of the petitioner in respect of the land in Survey No. 28/2 which was acquired by the State Government or in that matter land admeasuring 73 Ares in Survey No. 28/1 B sold to Dhanji D. Jadhav as well as Mahendra M. Shah. 4. Though the Award in respect of the acquired 32 Ares land from Survey No. 28 (on acquisition recorded as Survey No. 28/2) was passed on 14th February, 1983, one of the land owners viz. Balkrishna S. Misal approached for receiving the compensation of his share (50%) to the Land Acquisition Officer on 28th May, 1986 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an order on 5th June, 1986 for releasing 50% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs. 6,624/- in favour of Balkrishna Misal. He was finally paid the said amount by the Tahsildar Ahmednagar on 16th June, 1986 and the remaining 50% amount remained with the treasury. 5. The present petitioner submitted an application for the first time on 8th January, 1988 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer purportedly, an application under section 28A of the Act, and claimed that, on the basis of the award passed in Land Reference No. 207/ 83, 208/83 and 211/83 he was entitled to receive enhanced compensation in respect of the land admeasuring 32 Ares acquired from Survey No. 28 on the ground that the agreement for sale dated 7th January, 1984 gave him such a right and the original owners had transferred such a right to him. In addition, one of the owners viz. Balkrishna Misal also submitted similar application on the same date. It is surprising to note that the amount of Rs. In addition, one of the owners viz. Balkrishna Misal also submitted similar application on the same date. It is surprising to note that the amount of Rs. 6,624/-, which was deposited with the treasury, came to be released by the Tahsildar/Special Land Acquisition Officer to the present petitioner on 30th March, 1988 i.e. after about five years from the date of the award and two years from the date of deposit. Out of the two applications submitted under section 28A of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer processed the application submitted by the present petitioner and did not take any steps on the other application submitted by Balkrishna Misal. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed his Award under section 28A of the Act on 4th July, 1988 on the basis of the application submitted by the present petitioner and held that an amount of Rs. 8,95,792/- was payable. This amount was sanctioned by the Commissioner on 10th August, 1988. At this stage, on 21st July, 1988 Shri Balkrishna Misal submitted a detailed application demanding total enhanced amount. He submitted a reminder on 4th August, 1988 and sought to appear through an Advocate on 25th August, 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer purportedly recorded the statement of both the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer approached the Government Pleader on 27th September, 1988 and sought his opinion and finally on 1st November, 1988 corrected the Award dated 4th July, 1988 to the effect that 50% of the enhanced compensation amount shall be payable to the petitioner and balance 50% shall be surrendered to the Government. Pursuant to this corrected Award, the present petitioner received an amount of Rs. 4,47,896/ - on 2nd November, 1988 under protest. 6. Shri Balkrishna Misal did not keep quiet and he submitted representations on 13th February, 1989 as well as on 18th March, 1989. These applications were investigated into by the Divisional Commissioner and a report was called from the Collector, Ahmednagar, as well as from Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmednagar. On 14th February, 1989 the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report whereas the Collector submitted his report on 9th May, 1989. Both the reports are on record and it is evident from the Collectors report that a fraud was played on the Government to receive compensation amount of Rs. 6,624/- on 13th March. 1988 and the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. Both the reports are on record and it is evident from the Collectors report that a fraud was played on the Government to receive compensation amount of Rs. 6,624/- on 13th March. 1988 and the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 4,47,896/- on 2nd November, 1988, in connivance with the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Tahsildar concerned. On 19th August, 1989 the Divisional Commissioner passed an order and directed the Collector to recover the said amounts from the petitioner and also to proceed against Shri H. G. Ahire, Special Land Acquisition Officer No.9, Ahmednagar under Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules. Consequently, the impugned notice came to be issued against the petitioner for recovery of the amount received by him/her. We are informed that one of the officers is no more and the other one has been proceeded against under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. 7. At the first place we must note that the notification under section 4 of the Act in respect of the 32 Ares land from Survey No. 28 of village Bhingar was published in Government Gazette on 7th December, 1978 and after its possession having been taken over by the Government mutation entry regarding the ownership rights in favour of the Government came to be effected on 21st September, 1979. There was no question of alienating the said land by any agreement for sale or sale deed by the original owners. Once the land was vested in favour of the Government after its acquisition, any transaction that was entered into by the original owners with any other person or persons in respect of that land, if any, was void ab-initio. The agreement for sale dated 5th September, 1984 purportedly relied upon by the petitioner was ostensibly only in respect of 73 Ares land from Survey No. 28/lB and it could not read as vesting a right in favour of the petitioner to receive compensation for the land admeasuring 32 Ares already acquired much before, from the three joint owners. 8. Shri Gursahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an interested person and once he received 50% of the compensation on 30th March, 1988, pursuant to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14th February, 1983, he was successful in establishing that he was an interested person in the acquired land. 8. Shri Gursahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an interested person and once he received 50% of the compensation on 30th March, 1988, pursuant to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14th February, 1983, he was successful in establishing that he was an interested person in the acquired land. He further submitted that the agreement for sale dated 5th January, 1984 was clear and the land owners had transferred their entire claim for receiving the enhanced compensation in respect of the said land, in favour of the present petitioner and the said agreement was rightly acted upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Once the petitioner was accepted to be a person interested in the acquired land, his right to receive the enhanced compensation by submitting an application under section 28A of the Act remained intact and the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Commissioner could not dispute the petitioners right and in fact the Land Acquisition Officer, after passing the Award on 4th July, 1988 under section 28A of the Act, rightly held that the petitioner was entitled for receiving the entire enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 8,95,792/- and the correction to the said award made on 1st November, 1988 was illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that, the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance of Rs. 4,47,896/- with interest and the impugned notice is required to be quashed and set aside as the award passed under section 28A of the Act cannot be reviewed or corrected by the Commissioner or Collector as the case may be. 9. It is further contended that, once the Commissioner had delegated his powers and the Land Acquisition Officer came to be appointed, all the orders/awards were required to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer alone. The delegatee and the Commissioner becomes functus officio once the award is passed. Secondly, there is no provision under the Act envisaging the powers of review or correction of an award passed under section 28A of the Act and, therefore, even otherwise, neither the Land Acquisition Officer nor the Collector had any powers to recall or review the award dated 4th July, 1988, thereby seeking recovery from the petitioner as stated in the impugned order. In support of these contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court (Division Bench) in the case of "Smt. Sulochana vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division and others" 1967 Mh.L.J. 689 and a judgment of Rajasthan High Court (Single Bench) in the case of "Dhanraj and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others", AIR 1995 Rajasthan 66. 10. The petitioner, in connivance with the Special Land Acquisition Officer, undoubtedly managed to receive the 50% compensation amount i.e. Rs. 6,624/- on 30th March, 1988 by relying upon the agreement for sale on 5th January, 1984 and more particularly the following clauses therein: Hindi Matter ~ ~~.n-ql Cflltt q1T[ ~ ~ 3R0 ~ ~Hctll~ctl~-i ¥BR~ ~cOlq~I-qI~. ~~-;f. ~~ .rq~~~ ~~-i~I-q~1 ¥BR~~ Wf ~ 3i1l-c;i(1l-q ~ C[ C"-liloll-\IJJ ~ l.11-.j,<Ij.-<:;I-i1 c;B *1l-1-\Rl.j:;jctl ~ ~ ~C[~ 3Wttif. ~ ~ d~~~~~. ~~~R~. ~~~~I~~~Wf~Wf~~~~ Ic1ctlU~I~ ~~. ~ ~ ~I-\~I-il-ql ~ C[ crrt\q ~ ~cOl0-ll*1 eft ~ ~ C[ Wf d~ ~ ~ ID3 ~ fu;n 311%. ~ ~ ~ tt ~ ~ 3R0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (<D lIc04fl~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~311%. ---- Even this document could not have been relied upon and the petitioners claim ought to have been rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer right at the threshold as in March, 1988. Even when the possession of the land acquired was taken over by the State Government, Balkrishna Misal had only 50% of the ownership right and the remaining 50% was in favour of Sakharam M. Misal and Kashinath M. Misal. Balkrishna Misal received his share of the compensation i.e. Rs. 6,624/- on 16th July, 1986 and he was told that the balance amount would be paid to him only after submission of the succession certificate as the remaining two owners, by then were dead. This clearly implies that on 16th July, 1986 Balkrishna Misal could show 50% of this right in the acquired land and for the remaining 50% he could not submit a succession certificate and establish his right thereon. This balance amount, as deposited in the treasury, could have been paid only on submission of the succession certificate and it is surprising to note that the amount was paid to the petitioner on 13th March, 1988. This balance amount, as deposited in the treasury, could have been paid only on submission of the succession certificate and it is surprising to note that the amount was paid to the petitioner on 13th March, 1988. The agreement for sale dated 5th January, 1984 was specifically in respect of 73 Ares land from Survey No. 28/1A and it had no mention regarding the land in Survey No. 28/2. Notwithstanding the fact that no such transaction could have been entered into in respect of the said acquired land once it vested in the State Government. The sale deed dated 9th March, 1984 and 13th December, 1984 executed in favour of the present petitioner in respect of the 20 and 43 Ares land, respectively, from Survey No. 28/1N2 do not speak anything about the petitioners right to receive the enhanced compensation in respect of the land acquired by the State Government from Survey No. 28. These sale deed have been duly registered and mutation entries have been recorded in favour of the petitioner, showing her ownership in respect of 20 Ares and 43 Ares land. Admittedly, the agreement for sale dated 5th January, 1984 was never registered and even on this ground also the said document could not have been relied upon or accepted to hold that the petitioner was an interested person in respect of the acquired land (Survey No. 28/2). Even when the petitioner approached, for the first time to the Land Acquisition officer, claiming 50% compensation in respect of the acquired land (32 Ares), only the agreement for sale dated 5th January, 1984 was submitted and not the sale deeds dated 9th March, 1984 and 13th December, 1984. If copies of these sale deeds were submitted, it could have been clear to the Land Acquisition Officer that the petitioners claim for compensation was not tenable. The petitioner was aware of this fact obviously and, therefore, suppressed these documents and pursued the compensation claim only on the basis of the unregistered agreement for sale which did not exist when the sale deeds were signed and registered on 9th March, 1984 and 13th December, 1984. The compensation claim was raised by the petitioner on the basis of the document which was non-existent and had no value in the eyes of law and this is nothing short of a fraudulent behaviour. 11. The compensation claim was raised by the petitioner on the basis of the document which was non-existent and had no value in the eyes of law and this is nothing short of a fraudulent behaviour. 11. As per section 3(b) of the Act, the expression "persons interested" includes all persons claiming interest in compensation to be paid on account of acquisition of land under this Act and the person shall be deemed to be interested in land even if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. Section 3(c) of the Act defines the term "Collector" which means the Collector of a district and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer (or person) specially appointed by the (appropriate Government) (or by the Commissioner) to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act. Land Acquisition Officer means an officer appointed by the State Government by notification in the official gazette for such provision of the Act as may be specified in the notification. Section 3-1 A states that the powers conferred on the Commissioner by or under this Act shall be the powers exercisable by him in relation to the acquisition of land for those purposes only for which the State Government is the appropriate Government. As per section 10(1), the Collector may also require any such person to make or deliver to him, at a time and place mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of the requisition), a statement containing, so far as may be practicable, the name of every person possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof as co-proprietor, sub-proprietor, mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, and of the nature of such interest, and of the rents and profits (if any) received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of the statement. Under section l1(1)(iii) the Collector is required to examine the apportionment of the compensation amount amongst all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. Section 12A which was regarding the amendment of Award has been repealed on the introduction of section 13A by Act 68 of 1984. The provisions of Section 12A empowered the Collector to correct the award on account of clerical or arithmetical mistake. Section 12A which was regarding the amendment of Award has been repealed on the introduction of section 13A by Act 68 of 1984. The provisions of Section 12A empowered the Collector to correct the award on account of clerical or arithmetical mistake. However, the language of section 13A is different from the repealed provision of section 12A and in addition to the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in the A ward, any error arising in the A ward can now be corrected by the Collector on his own motion or on an application of the person interested or a local authority. Section 13A, therefore, gives the Collector the powers of revision either suo motu or on an application made. Under section 28A which is inserted by Act 68 of 1984, an application for enhancement or re-determination of the compensation amount can be submitted by the persons interested in the land acquired and a person who does not accept the A ward made under section 28A(2), by written application to the Collector can require that the matter be referred by him for determination of the Court and the provisions of Section 28A shall so far as may be applied to such reference as they apply to the reference under section 28A of the Act. With regard to the language of section 13A it is evident that the powers thereunder could be invoked before making a reference under section 18. If the award amount is received by the claimant under section 28A, the eventuality contemplated under subsection (3) therein docs not arise. We are, therefore, of the view that an Award passed under section 28A(2) of the Act does not fall within the purview of the powers of correction or revision as contemplated under section 13A of the Act. 12. We are further required to consider whether the Land Acquisition Officer or the Commissioner has powers to review or correct or recall the A ward passed under section 28A of the Act either suo motu or on an application made by any person interested. 12. We are further required to consider whether the Land Acquisition Officer or the Commissioner has powers to review or correct or recall the A ward passed under section 28A of the Act either suo motu or on an application made by any person interested. We have already held that on the basis of the agreement for sale dated 5th January, 1984 or the sale deeds dated 9th March/1st December, 1984 and 13th December, 1984 the petitioner could not be held to be a person interested in the land admeasuring 32 Ares acquired from Survey No. 28 of village Bhingar, which proceedings were concluded by an Award dated 14th February, 1983. It is true that in the scheme of the Act there is no such specific power for review/recall of the Award passed under section 28A of the Act but that does not itself mean that the Land Acquisition Officer or the Commissioner has no such powers or this Court under its inherent powers is precluded from stepping in to set aside such award if it is noticed that it has been obtained by playing a fraud on the State Government. 13. In the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. \IS. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, AIR 1981 SC 606 it was contended that, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Rules framed thereunder, there was no power conferred upon the Tribunal to set aside an exparte A ward or to review the same. A distinction was sought be drawn between application of review and application for setting aside an exparte Award based on evidence by contending that, if there was no evidence led between the Tribunal, there may be power to set aside the ex-parte order but if the A ward was based on evidence, the setting aside of the Award could not but virtually amount to a review. The Apex Court, while repelling the contentions regarding the Tribunals powers to review or set aside an exparte A ward, held in para 6, thus; "We are of the opinion that the Tribunal had the power to pass the impugned order if it thought fit in the interest of justice. It is true that there is no express provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. It is true that there is no express provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. But it is a well known rule of statutory construction that a Tribunal or body should be considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental power as are necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties. In a case of this nature, we are of the view that the Tribunal should be considered as invested with such incidental or ancillary powers unless there is any indication in the statute to the contrary. We do not find any such statutory prohibition. On the other hand, there are indications to the contrary." The Apex Court thus stated that the Tribunal or a body is deemed to have been vested with the powers of review or to set aside the ex parte orders unless there is any indication in the statute to the contrary which clearly meant that such powers are inherent. 14. In the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others. AIR 1994 SC 853 the Supreme Court inter alia held (a) it is settled position of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the First Court or by the Highest Court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court whether superior or inferior and it can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings; (b) the principles of "Finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court must come with clean hands; (c) A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation; (d) property grabbers, tax evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. In the case of United India Insurance Co. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation; (d) property grabbers, tax evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. San jay Singh and others, AIR 2000 SC 1165 similar issues fell for consideration before the Apex Court. It was noticed that, two separate awards were obtained from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and neither the Tribunal nor the High Court of Allahabad, before whom the Insurance Company had approached for annulling the A ward, exercised their power of review and the matter finally reached the Apex Court. After considering its earlier judgments in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) and Indian Bank (supra) the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier view in the following terms: (a) No Court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. (b) The remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree cannot be foreclosed. 15. It is a well established principle of law that every Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae-to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. When the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavailable and this principles appears in the maxim "Quando lex aliquid alicuiconcedit, concedere videtur id quo res ipsa esse non potest." On the touchstone of these well settled principles, as enumerated hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that an award passed under section 28A of the Act can be reviewed or recalled either suo motu or on an application made by any person, either by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Commissioner in case it is subsequently noticed that the same was obtained by fraud and the person in whose favour the award was passed was not an interested person in the land acquired. 16. 16. The Commissioner cannot be said to be without powers only because he had already appointed the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector has appointed such an officer. The inherent powers of the Commissioner remained intact for reviewing such fraudulent orders even if the orders have been passed by a delegate viz. the Land Acquisition Officer. If it is held otherwise, fraud will be allowed to be perpetuated under a statutory process and that too by a person who was alien to the subject land when it was acquired and when the award was passed. In the instant case the petitioner was successful in establishing before the Land Acquisition Officer that he was an interested person by receiving 50% of the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer vide Award dated 14th February, 1983 which amount he received for the first time on 30th March, 1988, and the application under section 28A of the Act was filed on 8th January, 1988 itself when the petitioner had not approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer to claim his right as an interested person. An application under section 28A of the Act is submitted first i.e. on 8th January, 1988 and the status of being an interested person is tried to be created by receiving, including the surrendered amount of Rs. 6,624/-, on 30th March, 1988 and for the receipt of this amount there was nothing in favour of the petitioner to support his claim under section 28A of the Act. It is manifest from the record that the petitioner succeeded in carrying the Land Acquisition Officer with him all along till Balkrishna Misal finally approached the Commissioner on or about 13th February, 1989 and the wheels of investigation turned against the petitioner. The petitioner did not remain contended by receiving an amount of Rs. 4,47,896/- fraudulently but insisted on receiving the balance amount and persuaded with determination the fraudulent perpetuation to receive the surrendered amount after the award passed under section 28A was corrected and in that process he was caught as it is evident from the record. This is a fit case to invoke plenary powers to uphold the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to review/recall the award passed under section 28A of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer fraudulently, dishonestly and in connivance with the claimant. This is a fit case to invoke plenary powers to uphold the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to review/recall the award passed under section 28A of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer fraudulently, dishonestly and in connivance with the claimant. It is plain and simple a broad day light fraud played by the petitioner on the exchequer to grab the financial benefit for which he had no claim and the claim raised was not only false but indeed a fabricated one. The document relied upon by the petitioner viz. the agreement for sale dated 5th January, 1984, was not only unregistered but in fact it could have created no interest in favour of the petitioner qua the subject land which was already acquired in 1979, mutation entry was effected in favour of the Government on 21st September, 1979 and award was passed on 14th February, 1983. 17. While upholding the impugned notice issued by the Collector, we must go further so as to ensure that the entire benefit obtained by the petitioner fraudulently is set aside and the amount so received is repaid to the Government with interest. We are of the firm opinion that, it is not sufficient to merely uphold the impugned notice and allow the Collector to proceed further, specially when the petition is pending before the Court for the last about twelve years and the impugned notice was stayed by this Court on 5th October, 1989. We have perused the record on the basis of which we have arrived at the conclusions set out in the foregoing paragraphs and therefore we further hold that the petitioner is liable to refund the entire amount received, in respect of the subject land, with simple interest, to the Collector, without further waiting for an order by him pursuant to the impugned notice. We also feel that this is a fit case for the Collector to examine initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner in addition to the recoveries sought to be made. The petitioner is, admittedly, a builder and has used the State money for business purposes during all these years and, therefore, must return the same with interest. The criminal action could be for making a claim to receive the compensation amount fraudulently. 18. In the premises, we hereby dismiss the petition and hold that the impugned notice does not suffer from any infirmities in law. The criminal action could be for making a claim to receive the compensation amount fraudulently. 18. In the premises, we hereby dismiss the petition and hold that the impugned notice does not suffer from any infirmities in law. The petitioner shall refund the compensation amount received, in respect of the subject land, with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of receipt of the respective amounts, within a period of four weeks from today, to the Collector, Ahmednagar. The Collector, Ahmednagar may also examine initiating criminal action against the petitioner and if so advised proceed accordingly. Rule discharged but with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- which shall be remitted within two weeks. Petition dismissed.