JUDGMENT

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at some length.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Appellant is the owner of the land admeasuring 37 acres of Survey No. 8/1, Village-Deolali, Taluka-Nasik, District Nasik, Maharashtra.

4. By virtue of the impugned order, the Respondent-State has been directed to acquire the said land as Respondent No. 3-Municipality has constructed a road on the said land.

5. The only objection which the learned Counsel for the Appellant has raised is about the observation made in paragraph 27(b) of the impugned judgment with regard to adverse possession of the Municipality. According to Respondent No. 3-Municipal Corporation, the Corporation was in possession of the land belonging to the Appellant.

6. The Appellant claims to be the owner of the land in question and even as per the Revenue Records, the Appellant appears to be the owner.

7. In our opinion, it was not fair on the part of the High Court to permit Respondent No. 3-Municipality to raise a plea with regard to adverse possession. It would not be proper on the part of the Government body or any state authority to take possession of s