WP(C) 4502/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A K Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.4 is represented by Mr. M K Mishra. The Sivasagar Development Authority (Responde nt No.3) despite receipt of notice is not participating in the present proceedin g. 2. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of respondent No.4, who made a compl aint on 7.6.2002 (Annexure 1) to the Chairman, Sivasagar Development Authority a lleging that her daughter-in-law (writ petitioner) who is in occupation of the h ouse ’JAHNABI’, Melachakar, Sivasagar is trying to re-structure 4 rooms of the h ouse in order to convert them into an office cum residence. 3. Acting on the said complaint, a notice dated 1.7.2002 (Annexure 3) was i ssued to the petitioner by the Chairman, Sivasagar Development Authority where i t was mentioned that from inspection of the premises, it is seen that the petiti oner is trying to use the old garage in the premises as an office, by constructi ng a wall in the middle. Accordingly the petitioner was asked to demolish the tw o pakka walls within the garage. 4. The petitioner in her reply dated 20.7.2002 (Annexure 5) stated that the re was a pre-existing office of Kori Bari Tea Estate in the so called store room and there is no basis for alleging that the petitioner has made any unauthorize d structural changes. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to th e definition Section 2(7) of the Assam Town & Country Planning Act, 1959 where t he work ’development’ has been defined, to contend that the petitioner has not v iolated any legal provision as no development has been carried out nor any mater ial changes in the building is made and only essential works for maintenance and improvement of the interiors of the premises is being carried out within the pe rmissible limit of law. It is also submitted that only because of a family dispu te complaint has been filed against the petitioner by her mother-in-law (Respond ent No.4). 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has no instruction on the pr esent stage of the case. However Mr. Mishra submits that a title suit being T. S . No.50/2002 has been filed by the writ petitioner and others claiming right, ti tle and interest of the premises in question in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr . Division), Sivasagar and the counsel submits further that right, if any of the writ petitioner in the premises, be permitted to be adjudicated by the Civil Co urt. 7. Since no response has been filed by the Sivasagar Development Authority, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the rival claims with regard to the construction/renovation made by the writ petitioner in the premises in q uestion. It is also seen that a title suit in respect of the very same premises has been filed by the petitioner, which is pending for adjudication. 8. In view of above, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this writ peti tion by relegating the parties to the adjudication process in the Title Suit No. 50/2002 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sivasaga r. 9. As the petitioner has already responded to the show cause notice issued by the Chairman, Sivasagar Development Authority, the said authority is permitte d to take a decision on the issue by considering the reply given by the petition er on 20.7.2002. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction without an y order on cost.