( 1 ) IN this Reference, the question that engages our attention and calls for an answer at our hands is as to whether the Collector under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), hereinafter referred to as the Act, has got the power to condone the delay in preferring an application asking for reference to Court. Section 18 of the Act, in its entirety, reads as follows :"18. Reference to Court : (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken : provided that every such application shall 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 date of the collectors award; (b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Sec. 12, sub-sec. (2), or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire. "finding divergence in the opinion expressed on the question by one set of pronouncements of this Court and another set of pronouncements, including one of this Court and two other binding pronouncements of the High Court of Bombay, the Bench has deemed fit to ask for a reference to a Larger Bench. The pronouncements of this Court, which have indicated a position to hold that there is a power for the Collector to condone the delay in preferring the application asking for a reference to Court, are as follows : (i) Mahijibhai Jivanbhai Vaghri v. Shri M. C. Shah, Special Land Acquisition officer, (M. C. ). Nadiad, ILR 1968 Gujarat 348; (ii) Mohan Vasta v. State of Gujarat, XXVI (1) [1985 (1)] GLR 293; (iii) Gopalbhai Becharbhai v. State of Gujarat and Anr. , XXIX (2) [1988 (2)] GLR 923; (iv) Bhikhubhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. , AIR 1989 Gujarat 8 [1988 (2) GLR 688]; and (v) Ishwarbhai Motibhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat and Anr. , XXXI (1) [1990 (1)] glr 47. The pronouncement of this Court, which has taken a contrary view, is found expressed in the report in Mohan Mulji v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Broach and Anr. , VII (1966) GLR 879. The binding pronouncements of the High Court of Bombay are found in : (i) Balakrishna Dajigupte v The Collector, Bombay Suburban, XXV-1923 BLR 398; and (ii) G. J. Desai v. Abdul Mazid Kadri, LIH-1951 0 BLR 257. The Bench, in the present case, formulated the questions as follows and referred them to a Larger Bench : (i) Whether Collector/land Acquisition Officer acting under Sec, 18 of the act while entertaining the application for reference is acting as court so as to exercise power under Sees. 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in A Special civil Application No. 404 of 1967 dated 29/08/1967 (P. N. Bhagwati Actg. C. J. and N. K. Vakil,.), ILR 1968 Gujarat 348, 1985 (1) glr 293, [1989 (2)] XXX (2) GLR 9, [1990 (1)] XXXI (1) GLR 47, air 1989 Gujarat 8 are not laying down correct law or are per incurium in view of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Mulji v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Broach and anr,, reported in (1966) VII GLR 879, decisions of the Division Benches of the Bombay High Court in the case of Balakrishna Daji Gupte v. The Collector, Bombay Suburban, reported in 25 BLR 398 and G. J. Desai v. Abdul Mazid Kadri, reported in 53 BLR 257 and also the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed hasnuddin v. State of Maharashfra, reported in AIR 1979 SC 404 and in the case of Sakwu v. Tanaji, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1279.

( 2 ) IT