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 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 Corporation by the State Government the petitioner, in compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, has given liberty to the respondent to file an application, however, by order dated 25-11-2007 the respondent/decree holders' representation was rejected on the ground that they will have to adhere to the procedure as prescribed under the Rules of 1994, which provide for transfer of immovable property by holding a public auction or by inviting offers in sealed cover. It is further contended that the decree, which was passed against the petitioner/judgment debtor; was to the effect that the allotment of plot to the respondent-decree holder was subject to availability and since the petitioner/Municipal Corporation made efforts to allot the plot to the respondent which could not be fructified, therefore, it was urged by way of an application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code filed before the Executing Court to dismiss the pending execution case because of the impossibility of its execution. It is on the anvil of these facts that the petitioner has sought the following relief in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:- (1) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record of the matter and after examining the same, be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 19-7-2007 (Ann.P/7) passed by the learned trial Court. (ii) That the after quashing the order Ann. P/7 the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass appropriate command or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the learned trial Court to accept the lawful compliance of judgment and decree made by petitioner and reported to it as final and legally permissible execution, (iii) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also awarded to the petitioner." 7. Besides relying upon the provisions contained in Rules of 1994, learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 , Dularey Lodh vs. The IIIrd Addl. Besides relying upon the provisions contained in Rules of 1994, learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 , Dularey Lodh vs. The IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, AIR 1984 SC 1260 and Narinder Kumar and another vs. H. C. Mehta, AIR 1987 Delhi 275 and contended, inter-alia, that when it is impossible to comply with the decree, then the doctrine of eclipse sets in motion and therefore, the execution proceedings in the present case be dropped. 8. On his turn the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, however, urges that the contentions raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor are misconceived. It is contended that section 80 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 lays down the provisions governing the disposal of municipal property or property vesting in or under the management of Corporation. It is urged that it is well within the power of the Municipal Corporation to allot the piece of land which belongs to the Municipal Corporation or is vested with the Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel further points out that the provisions contained in he Rules of 1994 also permit the transfer of immovable property even without resorting to public auction or by inviting offers in sealed covers. Reliance, thereof, is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Badri Prasad and others, 2001(4) MPHT 387 , wherein, this Court while interpreting sub-section (5) of section 80 of the Act of 1956 held that it is not necessary to obtain sanction of the State Government in respect of the property for which lease is created. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Puran Ram vs. Bhaguram and another, 2008(II) MPWN120 for proposition that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is very limited and can only be if there is any patent error in the order under challenge. It is accordingly urged that the petition being misconceived deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the respective pleadings. 10. The question which crops up for consideration is whether there is a statutory bar in honouring the decree passed by the trial Court. 11. It is accordingly urged that the petition being misconceived deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the respective pleadings. 10. The question which crops up for consideration is whether there is a statutory bar in honouring the decree passed by the trial Court. 11. Indisputably, section 80 makes a provision governing the disposal of municipal property or property vesting in or under the management of Corporation. Sub-section (1) of section 80 stipulates that no streets, lands, public places, drains or irrigation channels shall be sold, leased or otherwise alienated, save in accordance with such rules, as may be made in this behalf. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) provides that with the sanction of the Corporation the Commissioner may sell, lease or otherwise convey any movable property belonging to the Corporation. Furthermore sub-section (5) of section 80 stipulates: "(5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to every disposal of property belonging to the Corporation made under or for the purpose of this Act: Provided that - (i) no property vesting in the Corporation in trust shall be leased, sold or otherwise conveyed in a manner that is likely to prejudicially affect the purpose of the trust subject to which such property is held; (ii) no land value of which may be prescribed shall be sold or otherwise conveyed without the previous sanction of the Government and every sale, or other conveyance of property vesting in the Corporation shall be deemed to be subject to the conditions and limitations imposed by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force." 12. This Court while interpreting the aforesaid sub-section (5) of section 80 in the case of Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Badri Prasad and others (supra) in para 11 observed :- "11. It appears to this Court that section 80 of the Act is of inexhaustive section and deals with the disposal of the Municipal property which is vested in it or which is under its management. The section makes a distinction between two kinds of property. However, the section is not very happily worded and, there are certain overlapping provisions. It appears to this Court that section 80 of the Act is of inexhaustive section and deals with the disposal of the Municipal property which is vested in it or which is under its management. The section makes a distinction between two kinds of property. However, the section is not very happily worded and, there are certain overlapping provisions. Sub­section (1) of section 80 of the Act deals with streets, lands, public places, drains and irrigation channels and restricts the right of the Municipal Corporation to sell, lease or otherwise alienate the suit property subject to bye-laws and subject to sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 80 of the Act. Then sub-section (5) says that the aforesaid provisions shall apply to every disposal of the property belonging to the Municipal Corporation made under or for the purpose of the Act, subject to aforesaid two provisos. The plain meaning of main part of sub-section (5) of section 80 of the Act is that every property belonging to the Municipal Corporation shall be sold, leased or otherwise alienated subject to sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 80 of the Act and also in accordance with bye-laws framed by the Municipal Corporation. In this case, it is not in dispute nor any substantial question of law has been framed to the effect that while leasing out the property, if there was any violation of any of the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2), (3) or (4) of section 80 of the Act; or of any bye-law framed by the Municipal Corporation. It is not disputed that the auction in favour of the respondent No. 1 was validly done but it had to be cancelled subsequently on account of the fact that the State Government did not grant the sanction. It appears to this Court the proviso (ii) restricts the powers of the Municipal Corporation to sell or otherwise convey the property if it exceeds Rs.25,000/-, unless the State Government accords its sanction. Such a restrictive provision has to be strictly construed." 13. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, and having regard to the provisions contained under section 80, there is no statutory embargo for the Municipal Corporation to convey any immovable property belonging to the Corporation and for that no prior sanction is required from the State Government. Such a restrictive provision has to be strictly construed." 13. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, and having regard to the provisions contained under section 80, there is no statutory embargo for the Municipal Corporation to convey any immovable property belonging to the Corporation and for that no prior sanction is required from the State Government. Even the first proviso to Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 empowers the Corporation to effect transfer without public auction or inviting offers in sealed covers. The stand, therefore, taken by the petitioner/Corporation that there is statutory bar for creating permanent lease in favour of the respondent/decree-holder is misconceived and contrary to the provisions as laid down under section 80 and the rules made there under. 14. Since this Court has come to a conclusion that there is no statutory embargo in creating permanent lease in the land belonging to Municipal Corporation in favour of the respondent/decree holder, the aspect of doctrine of eclipse does not get attracted. 15. For the aforesaid reason this Court does not find any substance in the petition nor the order under challenge is found fault with. The petitions accordingly fail and are hereby dismissed. However no costs. 16. A copy of this order be kept in Writ Petition No. 12550/07. Petitions dismissed.