( 1 ) ). (CAV.) All these petitions have been placed before a larger Bench in view of an order of Reference made by our learned brother N. N. Mathur, J. on 23/03/1995. When the matters were placed for hearing before the learned single Judge, it was contended that the orders passed by different Division benches were inconsistent and contradictory. There was also discrepancy and disagreement between Full Bench decisions. The learned single Judge felt that there was some conflict between the Full Bench Judgment, "in order to reconcile between two Full Bench Judgments and to have a proper ratio decided to cover a field and also keeping in view of public importance of the issue", it was desirable to refer the matters to a Larger Bench. The Full Bench decisions are Gorva Vibhag Cooperative housing Societies Association v. State of Gujarat, 1992 (1) GLR 654 (First full Bench) and H. P. Dave v. Sub-Registrar, Rajkot, 1994 (2) GLR 1222 (Second full Bench ). The question is what is reasonable time ? Is there any outer limit for referring the question of proper stamp duty ?

( 2 ) ). Section 32a (1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 requires the Registering officer (when he has reason to believe that the consideration set forth in the instrument does not approximate to the market value of the property) to refer the instrument to the Collector for determining the true market value of the property. No period of limitation is provided by the legislature in sub-section (1), whereas the same legislature has provided a period of two years (now six years) in subsec. (4) of the same Sec. 32a which empowers the Collector to call for any instrument suo motu.

( 3 ) ). The contention of the petitioners is that two years (or six years) must be read as the outer limit of reasonable time for exercise of power under Sec. 32 (1 ). The rival contention is that the reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no fixed period for exercise of such power can be laid down by judicial pronouncement when even the legislature has thought if fit not to do so.

( 4 ) ). The learned single Judge formulated following two questions for consideration of the Larger Bench : (1) Whether the Registering Officer under Sec. 32a (1) or the Collector under Sec. 32a (4) can exercise the respective powers beyond the period of two years even on facts justifying the delay? (2) Whether Rule 3 (2) and Rule 4 (2) of the amended Rules are mandatory in nature and non-compliance vitiates the entire proceedings under Sec. 32a?

( 5 ) ). It further appears that after the above order was passed and Reference was made on 23/03/1995, the attention of the learned single Judge was drawn to an amendment in sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 32a of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 as amended by the Bombay Stamp (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994. Though the said amendment was brought in force during the pendency of the Second Full Bench decision, the attention of the Court was never invited to the said amendment and full Bench was not called upon to express any opinion one way or the other regarding the said provision. The learned single Judge, therefore, thought it appropriate to refer even that question and accordingly by an order dt. 20/04/1995, the following question was referred to a Larger Bench : (3) Whether the limitation of six years provided under Sec. 32a (4) of the Bombay stamp (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 will have effect on the limitation with respect to cases in which notices have been issued or action has been taken prior to the date of the amendment ?

( 6 ) ). To appreciate the controversy raised in the present petitions, relevant facts of the first petition, i. e. , Spl. C. A. 5253 of 1993 may now be briefly stated. 6. 1 This petition is filed by one Shailesh Jadavji Varia of Vadodara. It is his case that he purchased one immovable property situated in the sim of village Gorva, district and Sub-District Vadodara. He presented a document for registration in accordance