ORDER One of the main questions arising in the cases is whether a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, said to have been issued in 1956-1957, would still attract Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, even though it was never served upon the landholder. This question was answered in the affirmative and against the petitioner in an earlier decision of this Court in Chintamani Gajanan Velkar v. State of Maharashtra (2000)3 SCC 143 . In that decision a two Judges' Bench framed the issue as follows :- "8. The only question that arises before us for consideration is whether the word "issue" used in Section 2(f) of the Maharashtra Act, 1975 means service of notice on the landholder." It answered the issue in paragraph 19 in the following terms :- "19. In our view, the legislature has not made any discrimination in regard to the matters where notification had been issued under Section 35(1) of the Forest Act, 1927 on the one hand and in cases where notification had not been issued and the matter stood still at the stage of notice under Section 35(3) on the other. In the latter cases, the legislature thought it fit to exclude 2 hectares of the landholder from vesting. If that was done, a notice that was issued under Section 35(3) would itself be sufficient and if such notice was issued before the appointed day i.e. 30-8-1975 the land would vest in the State subject, of course that the Collector has to specify the particular extent of 2 hectares which can be retained by the landholder. There is no need for any service of such notice before 30-8-1975, nor for an inquiry nor for a notification under Section 35(1) ." Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel, has advanced arguments questioning the correctness of the decision in Chintamani Gajanan Velkar. We also feel that there are good reasons to reconsider the issue in question. Let this case, therefore, be listed before a Bench of three Judges. Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the interests of large number of people involved in the matter, it is desirable that this matter should be heard as early as possible. In the meanwhile, issue fresh notice to the unserved respondent(s) in W.P.(C) No. 240 of 2008. Dasti, in addition, is allowed.