ORDER 1. The land of the respondents was acquired vide notification dated 24.10.1975 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). The said land was earlier requisitioned in the years 1942 to 1945 for defence purpose. Award was made in the year 1986 and symbolic possession of the land was taken on 06.01.1987. Objections of the award were filed by the respondents against the award. A reference under Section 18 of the Act was made which was disposed of. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed by the respondents mainly on the ground that there was no due publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act which was a mandatory requirement. 2. The High Court upheld the plea of the respondents relying upon judgment of this Court in “Kulsum R. Nadiadwala Vs. State of Maharashtra ” (2012) 6 SCC 348 . 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that having regard to the fact that the land was already being used for defence purpose since the year 1942 to 1945 and the notification under Section 4 issued on 24.10.1975 was challenged for the first time by the writ petition filed on 24.06.2002, the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as entertaining such petition will seriously affect public interest. It was submitted that view taken in the relied upon judgment ignores the concept of laches. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in spite of delay and laches, this Court in the aforesaid judgment quashed the acquisition. 5. We are of the view that delay and laches may be a bar to challenge to the acquisition after 27 years. In Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai versus M. Meiyappan and ors (2010) 14 SCC 309 this Court held that in land acquisition proceedings the Court should not encourage stale litigation as it may hinder projects of public importance. The contra view in threeJudge Bench decision in Dayal Singh versus Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 593 was held to be in conflict with the Constitution Bench judgment in Rabindranath Bose versus Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 84 and threeJudge Bench judgment in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. versus M.A. Rasheed (2004) 4 SCC 460 . The said judgment was cited with approval in recent judgment of threeJudge Bench in Indore Development authority vesus Shailendra (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors. The said judgment was cited with approval in recent judgment of threeJudge Bench in Indore Development authority vesus Shailendra (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.20982 of 2017 – pronounced on 8th February, 2018). 6. In view of above, the view taken by twoJudge Bench in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala versus State of Maharashtra (2012) 6 SCC 348 to the effect that delay and laches have to be ignored is not free from doubt. 7. Thus, we are of the view that the matter needs to be placed before a Bench of three Judges. 8. Accordingly, let the papers be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.