Recently, the NCDRC observed that HUDA’s reservation policy lacked clarity regarding the eligiblity of retired paramilitary personnel for residential plots.
Given the ambiguity in the public documents, the Commission ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing HUDA to allot the plot originally assigned. The Forum found it unjust to cancel the allotment after the petitioner had already been informed of his selection, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner due to the lack of clear communication.
Brief Fact :
In the present case, the complainant applied for a residential plot under the reserved category for defence personnel during the booking period from 09.05.2013 to 08.07.2013. As a retired Paramilitary officer and Haryana domicile holder, the Complainant paid Rs. 1,17,500/- as earnest money, financed through a bank loan. His application was successful, and Plot No. 1633P in Sector 33P, Hisar, was allotted to him on 30.12.2013. However, in November 2014, the Respondents declared him ineligible for the reserved category, citing HUDA policy, and offered a refund of the earnest money. The complainant argued that the guidelines allowed his application and challenged the Respondents’ decision. Initially, the District Forum in Rewari ruled in his favor, directing the Respondents to provide possession of the plot and compensation. This decision was later overturned by the State Commission, which found the allotment improper as the Complainant was not eligible for the Defence personnel quota and only ordered the refund of the earnest money with interest.
Contention of Petitioner :
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the State Commission’s order is both illegal and unjust, warranting its reversal. The petitioner claims to meets the criteria for plot allotment under the reserved category as outlined in the respondent’s advertisement brochure. He asserts that he qualifies as an “ex-serviceman”, including retired Paramilitary officers, as supported by evidence. The counsel contends that the reasoning provided by the State Commission is flawed and that the Respondents improperly canceled the Petitioner’s plot allotment.
Contention of Respondent :
The counsel for the respondents contended that the plot allotments brochure explicitly separates Defence personnel and paramilitary forces, with only for the former for reservations. The petitioner, a retired paramilitary officer, applied under the Defence category but was found ineligible after the draw. Following the discovery, the respondents informed the petitioner of his ineligiblity and offered a refund of the earnest money. The State commission’s decision to refund the money was based on a thorough review of the guidelines, countering the Petitioner’s claim that the order was issued ex-parte.
Observation of the Commission:
The Forum observed that the reservation chart issued by the Chief Administrator of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on 06.05.1997 included a 10% reservation for Defence personnel and ex-servicemen, which was later subdivided to allocate 2% specifically for paramilitary forces, states, “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”. Despite the policy modification on 01.09.1998, which clarified that the reservation was intended for serving personnel, the documentation did not explicitly state this restriction.
The State Commission’s oversight in not recognizing the reservation’s intent for paramilitary forces, including retired personnel, led to an incorrect conclusion. The ambiguity in public documents necessitates that the benefit of doubt be granted to the petitioner, as the rule of contra preferentem applies due to the respondents’ failure to clearly define the eligibility criteria.
The decision of the Commission :
The Forum ruled in fovour of the petitioner, concluding that HUDA’s ambiguity in the reservation policy for paramilitary forces personnel was unjust. The Forum directed HUDA to allot Plot No. 1633P in Sector 33P, Hisar, to the petitioner at the original cost as of 11.02.2014. It was deemed unreasonable for HUDA to cancel the allotment after informing the petitioner, post facto, about the restriction on retired personnel. Both parties were instructed to bear their own costs and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
Title: NARESH KUMAR vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: REVISION PETITION NO. 379 OF 2019
Coram: Justice Sudip Ahluwalia, Justice Rohit Kumar Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Anurag Soan
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Noopur Singhal
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :