The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Municipal Corporation had the authority to convey immovable property without prior sanction from the State Government, and the petitioner's contention regarding the statutory bar for creating a permanent lease was misconceived.

JUDGMENT

This order shall govern the final disposal of Writ Petition No. 12550 of 2007, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal vs. Aziz Ahmed because the issue involved in both the petitions is the same.

2. Challenge put forth in these writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 19-7-2007 (Annexure-P/7) passed by Additional 4th Civil Judge Class-I of First Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, in Execution Case No. 60-A/96 (New No. 4/06) and Execution Case No. 59-A1996/06, whereby, the application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the Executing Court with a further direction that the decree be forthwith complied with.

3. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent/decree-holder filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction for grant of Plot of 75 sq. ft. on permanent lease of Re. 1/- per annum and against dispossession of occupation of the respondent over an area of 15 x 15 sq. ft. at Ravi Shankar Shukla Market, Bus Stop No. 5, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal. Declaration and injunction was sought on the anvil that since 1977 the petitioners were occupying the said piece of land with a prior permission from the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, and were having kiosk of 10 x 12 sq. ft. on a Tahbazari payment of Rs. 4/- per day, which was subjected to removal under anti-encroachment drive in the year 1990.

4. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent vide judgment dated 22-9-2001 and decree was to the following effect:

5. The petitioner did not challenge the same and allowed the decree to attain finality. Subsequently, an execution proceeding was initiated by the respondent/decree-holder; wherein, an application under section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred by the petitioner. contending, inter-alia, that the plot for which the suit was decreed was belonging to the Revenue Department and that no plot is available at a place where for the suit was decreed. The trial Court after framing the issues as to whether the land for which the suit was decreed was a revenue land and about non-availability of the land held the objection raised by the judgment debtor that the petition was baseless. The trial Court found that the petitioner/Municipal Corporation judgment debtor instead of initiating a proceeding in respect of allotment of lease hold plot to the petitioner resorted to Rule 3 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1994') which, in the opinion of the Executing Court, was a deliberate attempt on the part of the judgment debtor to give a go bye to the judgment and decree. Consequently, the applications were rejected by the impugned order dated 19-2-2007. It is against this order that the petitioner/judgment debtor has preferred the present petition.

6. The case of the petitioner is that it has no legal authority and jurisdiction to transfer any immovable property, owned by it and vested, to any individual without resorting the provisions contained under the Rules of 1994. It is contended that in compliance of the judgment and decree dated 22-9-2001 the petitioner/Municipal Corporation resolved to allot a plot of 15 x 15 sq. ft. to respondent on lease on 2-1 2002. However, when the said proposal was sent for its approval to the State Government, the State Government rejected the same "05 its order dated 25-2-2004. It is further contended that the aforesaid order dated 25-2-2004 was subjected to challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2317/05, wherein, this Court by order dated 30-7-2005, Annexure-P/3, remind the matter to the State Government and the State Government, in compliance the order dated 30-7-2005, re-examined the matter and rejected the allotment proposed by the Municipal Corporation by its order dated 31-1-2007. It is further urged on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor that despite of the rejection of the proposal of the Municipal Corpora