Municipal property transfer requires statutory sanction; corporation resolutions alone cannot create employee rights in municipal quarters.

Municipal employees could not claim transfer of municipal quarters merely on the basis of corporation resolutions, because the statutory scheme vested executive power in the Municipal Commissioner and governed disposal of immovable municipal property through Section 200. The Commissioner could transfer such property only with the required sanction, and the sale consideration had to reflect fair market competition. Since the Corporation had no independent authority to dispose of immovable property contrary to these conditions, its resolutions alone could not create any legal right in favour of the employees. The claim to ownership or transfer was therefore untenable, and the petitions failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether municipal employees had a legal right to claim transfer of municipal quarters on the basis of corporation resolutions, notwithstanding the Municipal Commissioner's objection and the statutory scheme governing disposal of municipal property.

Analysis: The Act vested the entire executive power in the Commissioner, subject to the statutory framework. Disposal of immovable property was governed by Section 200, under which the Commissioner could transfer property only with the required sanction, and the consideration for sale could not be below the value obtainable in normal and fair competition. The scheme of the Act showed that the Corporation did not have an independent power to dispose of immovable property contrary to the statutory conditions. The resolutions passed by the Corporation, without lawful authority and without the Commissioner's decision or agreement to transfer the quarters, could not create a legal right in favour of the employees.

Conclusion: The claim to ownership or transfer of the municipal quarters based only on the Corporation's resolutions was untenable, and the petitions failed.

---