RITVIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The reply filed by the Respondent No.2-Municipal Council, Katol is categorical. In Paragraph 3, it is stated that the issue in question was taken up in the General Body meeting of the Municipal Council, Katol as Subject No.13 on 19/3/2021 and in this meeting, after discussion, it was unanimously resolved that the subject-land, which is currently reserved for the purposes of Town Hall and Garden, should not be acquired and this fact should be intimated to the land-owner. This reply is well-supported by copy of the Resolution bearing No.13/2021, which is at Page 22.