IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18532 of 2010 SHEO DAYAL SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 02. 02.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A supplementary affidavit is stated to have been filed. But the same is not available on the record. Let, the office trace it out and place on record. From a copy placed by the counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent from Annexure-A not disputed by the learned counsel for the Corporation that a vigilance case has been initiated with regard to the constructions. The petitioner contends that the constructions be made by him on his lands in Chitragupta Nagar, Parwati Path behind Ram Kumar Apartment, are under a sanctioned plan. If that be so, and the respondents Corporation has started a Case No. 19B of 2010 against him, let the petitioner appear in the same and satisfy the authorities that his actions were within the confines of the law. Needless to state that any construction made by the petitioner in the mean time shall remain subject to the final adjudication on the issue by the trial court. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)