The enforcement of the PUDA Act transferred the property to the PUDA, making the State of Punjab unauthorized to re-allot the plot. The principle of equality before the law cannot be claimed for a wrong act.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

1. This is plaintiff s second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below, whereby its suit for mandatory injunction for issuance of a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to issue allotment order in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit property, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that industrial plot No.C-35, Industrial Phase-II, Mohali District Ropar was allotted to Sarvshri Satinder Mohan Singh and Avinash Mahindra vide allotment order dated 27.07.1971. Later on, the ownership was allowed to be changed in the name of five partners i.e. Sh.Avinash Mahindra, Sh.Chaman Lal, Sh.Madan Mohan Mahindra, Sh.Surinder Kumar Goel and Sh.Gian Chand Gupta. Thereafter, other partners withdrew and Madan Mohan Mahindra remained the sole proprietor of appellant-firm. The entire price of the plot in question was paid and conveyance deed was executed on 06.12.1985 in favour of the appellant. Since the plaintiff-appellant could not complete the construction on the plot in question within the stipulated period, it resulted in the resumption of the plot. Appellant challenged the resumption order before the authorities. However, the resumption order was maintained and even writ petition filed by the appellant in this Court was also dismissed on 12.05.1993 vide Ex.PW2/2. It is the further case of the appellant that on an application filed by him for re-allotment of the said plot, the Government of Punjab vide its order dated 02.01.1997 conveyed that the Government had decided to re-allot the plot No.C-35, Phase-II, Mohali to the appellant and defendant/respondent No.2 was directed to issue re-allotment letter. In spite of the fact that Government had conveyed its decision to defendant No.2, the re-allotment order was not issued. The plaintiff also relied upon re-allotment of plot to one Mohan Singh in similar circumstances by the State. Hence the present suit for mandatory injunction was filed.

3. Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the request of plaintiff for re-allotment of plot in question was considered by the Government and the Chief Administrator, PUDA Chandigarh was informed accordingly vide letter dated 02.01.1997. It was further submitted that defendant No.l was informed by defendant No.3 vide letter dated 10.02.1998 that re-allotment of plot in question cannot be made to the plaintiff. Denying other material averments, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. Defendants No.2 and 3 filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the plot of the allottee was resumed for non-construction and all the remedies of the appellant stood exhausted and his writ petition was dismissed. It was further stated that defendant No.l had no authority for re-allotment of the plot in question as the same was property of defendants No.2 and 3 and defendant No. 1 had nothing to do with the allotment of the plot in question.

5. It was also stated that plot in question was allotted by PUDA and the same re- mained the property of PUDA after resumption of the plot. It was categorically submit- ted that appellant cannot derive benefit from the case of Sh.Mohan Singh as the same was different and the Government cannot allot the plot in question to the plaintiff as it has got no right over the property and order of defendant No.l dated 02.01.1997 was absolutely illegal. It was further submitted that after resumption, the said plot was in the possession of defendants No.2 and 3. Remaining paras of the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed.

6. In the replication, plaintiff reiterated his version and controverted the averments of the written statement.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to issuance of direction to defendants No.2 and 3 to issue allotment order to