The petitioner contended that the Collector, who is also the chairperson of the committee entrusted with implementing the court’s verdict, has failed to follow the directions in the verdict and evacuate the apartment, forcing him to live in an unsafe building under constant threat to life.
| Photo Credit: H VIBHU
A resident of the Chander Kunj Army Towers in Kochi has moved a contempt of court petition in the Kerala High Court against Ernakulam District Collector G. Priyanka for alleged non-compliance with the court verdict regarding the evacuation, demolition, and reconstruction of the twin towers.
Earlier this year, the court had disposed of a writ appeal filed by the association and a few owners against the February 3 verdict of a Single Bench of the Kerala High Court — which had ordered the demolition and reconstruction of the twin towers on grounds of serious structural problems — along with several related review petitions.
The petitioner, Ciby George, a retired Army Colonel and resident of Tower C of the Chander Kunj Apartments, contended that the Collector, who is also the chairperson of the committee entrusted with implementing the judgment, has failed to follow the directions in the verdict and evacuate the apartment, forcing him to live in an unsafe building under constant threat to life.
As per the terms of the judgment dated September 10, 2025, the committee is bound to pay affected residents six months’ advance rent of ₹35,000 per month to those who own apartments in C Tower, ₹30,000 to apartment owners in B Tower, and ₹30,000 as relocation charges, to be deposited into an escrow account held by the Collector, into which the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) credits the amount.
Incidentally, Mr. George is the only occupant among the 208 affected apartments who continues to live in the building, as he has been denied the rent and relocation charges. The others moved out after AWHO deposited the advance rent in the escrow account held by the collector.
After noticing that Mr. George had been denied the advance rent and relocation charges, the Collector, at a meeting of the district committee held on October 14, directed AWHO to pay him immediately. He contended that the Resident Welfare Association had also left out his name from the list of beneficiaries.
“As per the judgment, it is directed that the respondent (the Collector) shall finalise the buy-back scheme and carry out a comprehensive exercise to re-evaluate and reassess the scale of construction within a set time frame. It is also directed that the timeline set by the respondent shall be scrupulously adhered to. However, the respondent has failed to implement these directions. As a result, owners who have opted for buy-back to exit the project have been paid rent and continue to consume project funds without any reasonable cause, while this petitioner has been denied rent. Due to the delay in finalising the buy-back scheme, implementing the judgment, and repossessing the petitioner’s apartment, the process has been delayed,” the petition said.
The court is set to consider the petition on December 18.
Published – December 06, 2025 10:43 am IST
