PER MR. ROHIT KUMAR SINGH

1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No. 922 of 2017, vide which the Appeal filed by the Respondents was partially allowed and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was set-aside.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant applied for a residential plot in the sector developed by the Respondents during the booking period that commenced on 09.05.2013, and closed on 08.07.2013. He applied under the reserved category for Defence personnel, as he is a retired Paramilitary officer. To secure the plot, the Complainant deposited an earnest money amount of ₹1,17,500/- which was funded through a loan from Bank, incurring significant interest. As an ex-serviceman from the Paramilitary force and a Haryana domicile holder, the Complainant contends that he falls within the scope of the Defence personnel reserved category. According to the guidelines provided in the Application Form, specifically Table 3, Serial no. 12, he applied under the appropriate reserved quota, where his eligibility is clearly mentioned. He duly submitted his application form to the Respondents' office after completing all necessary formalities before the booking period closed. In the draw held on 30.12.2013, the Complainant's application was selected, and he was allotted Plot No. 1633P, measuring 4M, in Sector 33P, Hisar. This allotment was formally communicated to him by the Respondents through Memo No. HUDA/HSR/EO/2014/DS-A-33/3248, dated 11.02.2014. Following the allotment, the Respondents, via the same memo, requested the Complainant to furnish various documents. The Complainant promptly submitted these documents to the Respondents' office on 25.02.2014. However, he later received another memo from the Respondents (Memo No. EO/HUDA/HSR/A-33P-1/2014/17851, dated 24.11.2014), stating that he was ineligible to apply under the reserved Paramilitary quota. The memo indicated that, according to HUDA policy, retired personnel could not apply under this category, and it offered a refund of the earnest money deposited by the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that Table 3, Serial no. 12, of the Application Form guidelines clearly states that Defence personnel, whether serving or ex-servicemen, can apply under the reserved category. Therefore, the memo issued by the Respondents denying his eligibility is contrary to the law and the guidelines published for these residential plots, and that it should be declared null and void. Despite multiple requests to the Respondents for the issuance of a possession letter for the allotted plot, the Respondents have remained adamant about refunding the earnest money and cancelling the allotment. The Complainant highlights that the earnest money was deposited after securing a loan, for which he has paid a substantial amount in interest. As a result of the Respondents' negligent behaviour, the Complainant claims to have suffered significant physical, mental, and economic distress and is demanding compensation, damages, and litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the deficiency of service on part of the Respondents, the Complainant initially filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum in Rewari but withdrew it on 27.07.2016, due to a lack of jurisdiction and filed it before the Ld. District Forum, Hisar.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 10.04.2017 allowed the complaint and directed the Respondents to give possession of the Plot to the Complainant along with ₹5,000/- towards mental agony and ₹1,000/- towards litigation costs. The Respondents then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which partially allowed it vide the impugned Order dated 29.10.2018 and set-aside the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -

“7. The basic and foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the complainant is entitled for plot in question under reserved category which in fact was allotted to complainant?

8. While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Sh. Vikas Yadav, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that vide memo dated 11.02.2014 conveyed to him by the O.Ps that plot No.133P measuring 4 M Sector 33P was allotted. Since once the plot in question was allotted under the category of defence personnel, the O.ps. cannot cancel the allotment.

9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party vehemently argued that complainant was retired from paramilitary forces and retired person from paramilitary forces were not ex-serviceman, whereas the plot in question was reserved for defence personnel only. The O.P. rightly cancel the plot in question and asked to refund the earnest money deposited by complainant vide memo dated 24.11.2014.

10. Since the plot in question was wrongly allotted to the complainant, he was not entitled to get plot under the category because he retired from paramilitary forces and retired person from paramilitary forces are not considered to be defence personnel/ex-servicemen. The OP. rightly asked complainant to refund the earnest money vide memo dated 24.11.2014. As per Ex.R-1 itself clear that no reservation for widows of deceased personnel or retired paramilitary forces personnel. The complainant is only entitled for refund of the amount. The impugned order dated 10.04.2017 is set aside for all intents and purposes and the O.P.-appellant are directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 1,17,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of depositing the amount till realization. With this modification, appeal stands disposed off.

11. The statutory amount of Rs.3000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and Identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.”

4. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that that the State Commission's order is illegal and perverse and, therefore, liable to be set aside; That he fulfils the criteria for the allotment of the plot in the reserved category, according to the advertisement brochure issued by the Respondents; That he falls within the definition of "ex-servicemen," which includes retired officers from the Paramilitary forces (as evidenced by Ex-C-7, Page 53); That the reasoning provided by the Ld. State Commission is flawed and should be rejected, as the Respondents have wrongfully cancelled his allotment of the plot.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondents has argued that a brochure was issued for the allotment of freehold residential plots in Sector 14 (Part-II) and Sector 33 (Part-I), as detailed in Annexure P-4 (pages 38-41A). Table 3 of this brochure, specifically at serial numbers 11 and 12 on page 40, clearly delineates the reservation categories. It distinctly separates serving Defence personnel and ex-servicemen from paramilitary forces, indicating that these are different categories with specific reservations. The brochure is the foundational document for the allotment process, and it makes clear that the category of ex-servicemen applies only to the Army, Navy, and Air Force, excluding paramilitary forces; That after receiving applications, including that of the Petitioner, a draw was conducted on 30.12.2013. The Petitioner was selected and was allotted Plot No. 1633P, Sector-33P in Hisar, as confirmed by the memo dated 11.02.2014. Following this, the Respondents requested the Petitioner to submit an employer certificate and other relevant documents, such as retirement certificates, domicile, and eligibility certificates (Annexure P4, page 42). The Petitioner, being a retired paramilitary personnel, applied under the Defence personnel category. The Respondents had no means to verify the Petitioner's eligibility before the draw, as the documents were only requested from successful applicants post-draw. It was only after the Petitioner submitted his documents on 25.02.2014 that the Respondents discovered that the Petitioner had applied under an incorrect category. After realizing this, the Respondents informed the Petitioner on 24.11.2014 that he was not entitled to the allotment and offered to refund the earnest money (Annexure P4, pages 51-51A). The Petitioner, however, cannot alter the Respondent authority's scheme to suit his preferences; That the Ld. District Forum, in its decision, wrongly relied on Ex C-7, which is merely a proposed reservation chart. The District Forum failed to consider Ex-R1, the brochure containing the actual allotment scheme, where Table 3, Sr. Nos. 11 and 12, clearly differentiate between serving Defence personnel and ex-servicemen and paramilitary forces. There is no reservation for retired paramilitary personnel; That the Petitioner had also sought information under the RTI Act, 2005, on 26.02.2014 regarding the paramilitary quota. The information, provided on 12.03.2014 (Annexure P4, pages 55-55A), explicitly stated that the quota was for serving personnel, not for retired personnel; That the Ld. State Commission, after a careful review of the records and facts, passed a reasoned order that balanced equities while ensuring the refund of the earnest money along with interest to the Petitioner. The State Commission rightly observed that there is no reservation for widows of deceased personnel or retired paramilitary forces personnel, as per Ex-R1 (Para 10, pages 17-18 of the Paper-book). A perusal of Ex-R1, particularly Table 3, Sr. Nos. 11 and 12, reaffirms that the application guidelines for serving Defence personnel and ex-servicemen differ from those for paramilitary forces. The table makes it clear that there is no reservation for retired paramilitary personnel; That the Petitioner has inaccurately claimed in his Revision Petition that the State Commission's Order was ex-parte. However, the records show that Mr. Vikas Yadav, the Petitioner's Advocate, appeared before the State Commission. The State Commission, after considering the submissions and contentions presented by the Petitioner's Advocate, passed the impugned Order.

6. This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.

7.      It is a fact that cause of action arose from the circular of the Chief Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Sector-6, Panchkula dated 06.05.1997 where the reservation chart for various categories was stated in the Table which is reproduced below:

8.      Clearly at Sl.No.7, defence personnel/ex-serviceman including Paramilitary forces like CRPF, BSF, ITBP, RPF, GSF, CFEF etc. of domicile of Haryana State   have been granted a reservation of 10% vis-à-vis allotment of residential plots. This dispensation was subsequently modified vide order dated 01.09.1998 wherein this block of 10% was further bifurcated and 2% reservation (out of 10%) was earmarked for the personnel of “Para Military forces like  CRPF, BSF, RPF, GSF, CFEF hailing from Haryana State”. The Petitioner had applied under this quota and was allotted the said plot. However, he was subsequently informed by HUDA that this policy is only applicable to the serving personnel of Paramilitary forces.

9.      However,  the fact that this reservation was only for serving personnel and not for the retired personnel of Paramilitary forces was not clearly brought out in all the three documents available in public domain viz. (i) HUDA Brochure (ii) the letter of Chief Administrator, HUDA dated 06.05.1997 and (iii) their subsequently letter dated 01.09.1998.

10.    The learned State Commission has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not seeking a special dispensation or reservation in the category “ex-servicemen” but rather in the sub category of paramilitary forces that arose out of the bifurcation of the main category into two subcategories, ie (i) 8% for the ex-servicemen who had served in defence forces and further (ii) 2% for the personnel belonging to para military forces like CRPF, BSF, CISF, et cetera with a domicile in Haryana. While setting aside the order of the learner District Forum, the learned State Commission wrongly concluded that since the petitioner did not belong to the category of “ex-servicemen”, he is not entitled to such allotment within the reservation meant for this particular category.

11.    The main issue in this case is whether in the bifurcated category where 2% present has been given to the personnel belonging to para military forces, the petitioner was eligible or not. In all the public communication, including the brochures and the subsequent letters of Chief Administrator HUDA, it has nowhere been categorically mentioned that within the 2% reservation for paramilitary forces, the retired personnel are NOT eligible and it is only meant for serving personal. While in the category of ex-servicemen, this distinction has been made with ample clarity.

12.    The rule of contra referentem is applicable in this case because the ambiguity and the consequent inadequate clarity has been created by the respondents and hence, the benefit of doubt is to be given to the petitioner on account of which they cannot unilaterally withdraw the allotment made by them to the petitioner.

13.    Clarity in communication is an essence of good governance. It is a fact that the Petitioner is a member of Para Military forces and as per records available has served at the lower echelons of the force. It is also a fact that in the Indian context, majority of the population accords one of the top-most priorities in their lives to owning a dwelling for themselves and their families. Such opportunities of allotment of plots come very rarely in a life of a person especially at the level of the Petitioner who served as a Head Constable in Paramilitary forces. Not specifying clearly that the reservation of plots by HUDA was only for serving personnel of Paramilitary forces and not the retired ones, has created this ambiguity which needs to be decided in the favour of the Revision Petitioner; more so, when the Petitioner succeeded in the lottery and was subsequently informed by HUDA about the allotment. Infirming the applicant post facto that this reservation is only applicable to serving Paramilitary forces personnel is unjust and unreasonable. Hence, we allow this Revision Petition and directed HUDA to allot Plot No. 1633P, measuring 4M, in Sector 33P, Hisar at the cost on the date of the allotment i.e. 11.02.2014.

14.    The Revision Petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.