IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19302 of 2011 1. Rameshwar Rai Son Of Late Ram Chandra Rai Resident Of Village-Amer Naya Tola Karmopur, P.O. Navanagar, P.S. Bidupur, District-Vaishali, 2. Sitaram Rai Son Of Late Ram Chandra Rai Resident Of Village-Amer Naya Tola Karmopur, P.O. Navanagar, P.S. Bidupur, District-Vaishali, 3. Most. Ram Sakhi Devi Widow Of Late Ram Chandra Rai Resident Of Village-Amer Naya Tola Karmopur, P.O. Navanagar, P.S. Bidupur, District-Vaishali, 4. Smt. Naina Devi Wife Of Sri Devendra Rai, S/O Late Ram Chandra Rai Resident Of Village-Amer Naya Tola Karmopur, P.O. Navanagar, P.S. Bidupur, District-Vaishali, … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Collector, Vaishali At Hajipur. 3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali At Hajipur, … … Respondents For the Petitioners: M/s Naresh Chandra Verma and Ajay Kumar, Advocates For the State: Ms, Archana Prasad, AC to GP 19 … 2 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Five decimals of land of Revisisonal Survey Plot No. 596 of the petitioners have been acquired for construction of a road connecting the village from a National Highway. The petitioners had earlier challenged the same by filing C.W.J.C. No. 15766 of 2010, which was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2010 and the Collector was directed to make spot verification in presence of the parties affected by the Deputy Collector 2 Land Reforms before disposing of the objection of the petitioners. Accordingly, spot verification after noticing the parties was done by the concerned District Land Acquisition Officer and the report has been brought on record as Annexure 6. The Collector, thereafter, passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for keeping their area out of the acquisition in view of the verification report of the District Land Acquisition Officer whereunder it has also been recorded that the petitioners have constructed the temporary structure after notification regarding the concerned acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have constructed the house in the year 1992 itself, however, nothing has been brought on record in support of their contention. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are living at Shilong in the State of Meghalaya for their livelihood. In view of the spot verification as well as earlier verification report of the concerned circle, it appears that after notification of the concerned land a temporary structure has been erected by the petitioners. It has also been found that majority of the petitioners are actually not 3 living in the village, rather they are living at Shilong in the State of Meghalaya. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. As a result, this writ application is dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)