( 1 ) WE have heard counsel for the appellant for some time. Counsel has brought to our notice a decision of this Court, relied upon in the impugned judgment by the High Court, in Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar. In para 17 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court has observed as follows: "17. Under R. 3, a Land Acquisition Committee is constituted for the purpose of advising the appropriate Government in relation to acquisition of land under Part VII of the Act, which is required to tender its advice within one month from the date of which it is constituted though the time can be extended by two months. Here again the Collector is required to hold an enquiry in a quasi-judicial sense and would give not only to the company a reasonable opportunity to make good its representations in that behalf but would also, to fulfil the needs of rules of natural justice, give sufficient opportunity to the landowners to refute the case of the company at least insofar as a matter like negotiation of price is concerned, as also on other relevant matters. That R. 4 is mandatory and essential to be complied with has been ruled by this Court in various decisions. Reference may be made to some of them, they being: State of Gujarat v. Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhai, State of Gujarat v. Ambalal Haiderbhai and General Govt. Servants Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Wahab Uddin. " ( 2 ) IT would thus appear that this Court took the view that in holding an enquiry under R. 4 (2) (iii) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, the Collector must give individual notice to the landowners to refute the case of the company insofar as they relate to matters within the contemplation of sub-rule (2 ). ( 3 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, having regard to the authorities R. 4 is mandatory but we entertain serious doubt as to whether individual notice is required to be given at this stage to the landowners, particularly having regard to the provisions of S. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers right upon the landowners to object to the acquisition of their land. We therefore feel that this matter should be heard by a larger Bench. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.