ORDER 1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Question involved in these matters is with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 77 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which provides for payment of solatiun @ 15% and interest @ 6%. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Act nowhere refers to the provision of the Land Acquisition Act and land acquisition is neither incorporated either by reference or by specific provision. He, therefore, submits that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao1 would not be applicable. He relies heavily on the judgment rendered by this Court in Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of a Gujaratparticularly para 18 andjudgments rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Karam Singh, where in the Court has refused to grant solution and interest in a decision arisingout of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and in Union of India v. Ajaib Singh4. 3. As against this, learnedcouncilfor the respondent submits that if solarium @ 30% and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act isnot granted the provision of Section 77 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act would be violative of Article 14 as held by this Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rsa05. 4. Considering the important question of law involved, we think that this matter requires to be decided by a larger Bench. Hence this matter be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice of India for placing the same before athree-Judge Bench. Court Masters