( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of Appellanf"s appeal under Section 10 of the delhi High Court Act against the impugned order dated 8th April, 2002 passed by learned Single Judge in S. No. 127/1980 appointing a local commissioner for taking necessary steps to sell the suit property on plot No. 16-B, Block -I, 38, Ratendon Road, New Delhi after preliminary decree for partition so that the sale proceeds be divided among the four co-owners.

( 2 ) IN a suit for partition between the parties, a preliminary decree was passed on 8th May, 1980. The preliminary decree was passed after the parties agreed regarding their shares as :- Sh. Chander Krishan Gupta, plaintiff, l/4th ; Sh. Brij Krishan Gupta, Defendant No. 1, 1/4th ; Avtar krishan Gupta, Defendant No. 2, 1/4th ; Balraj Krishan Gupta, Defendant no. 3, 1/8th ; Kumari Anjali Gupta, Defendant No. 4, 1/8th share.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the preliminary decree passed by the learned Single judge, a local commissioner Sh. S. R. Tikekar was appointed to suggest the mode of partition. Since the property is a leasehold property, the learned local commissioner corresponded with the Landdo and Delhi Development authority who informed him that the property in dispute could not be partitioned physically by meets and bounds. He was also advised by the competent authority, Land and Development Office that the property in suit cannot be sold under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976. Consequently, he filed an interim report dated 8th november, 1980 stating that the sub division of the property was not permissible and possible.

( 4 ) IT seems that thereafter, at the instance of some of the parties, a clarification was sought from Landdo regarding division of property on the ground that sub division of other similarly situated properties at Ratandon road and adjoining Prithviraj Road had been permitted. On this the matter was again taken up regarding sub division of the property with Land and development Office, New Delhi and Delhi Development Authority but no reply was received suggesting that property could be sub-divided. The alleged discrimination of authorities in granting permission for sub division to other similarly situated properties and not to the property of the parties in the present appeal was also not challenged before any authority or Court.

( 5 ) IN view of the communication of the Land and Development Office, absence of any communication or order of authorities since 1980 permitting sub division of the property being contrary to Master and Zonal plan, the learned Single Judge was pleased to order sale of the said property by auction vide order dated 8. 4. 2002. A local commissioner to take steps to put the property for sale, so that the sale proceeds may be distributed amongst all the four co-owners in accordance with their shares.

( 6 ) THE appellant impugns order dated 8. 4. 2002 on the ground that the suit property was partable by meets and bounds and the local commissioner who was appointed by the Court had not submitted his final report before the learned Single Judge though he had submitted an interim report contending that according to the communication received from Landdo and dda the plot could not be sub divided. The appellants have also contended that since other properties on the Ratendon Road and adjoining Prithviraj road were allowed to be sub divided, the local commissioner had raised the matter with the Landdo and DDA and had also sent the reminders, however, no final report has been filed by him and in absence of his final report, it cannot be inferred that the property cannot be sub divided. The appellant has also doubted the letter dated 20th January, 1998 addressed to the respondent No. 2 reiterating their stand taken by Landbo in letter dated 2. 4. 1980.

( 7 ) THE appellants have specifically contended that the sole motive and objective of the respondents is to throw out appellants from the suit property though they are