Chander Kunj apartment resident moves contempt petition against Collector

A resident of the Chander Kunj Army Towers has moved a contempt of court petition in the Kerala High Court against 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 apartment owners’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 the 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 apartments, contended that the Collector, who is also the chairperson of the committee entrusted with implementing the judgment, had failed to follow the directions in the judgment and evacuate the apartment, forcing him to live in an unsafe building under constant threat to life.

According to the terms of the judgment dated September 10, 2025, the committee is bound to pay the affected residents six months’ advance rent of ₹35,000 per month to those who own apartments in Tower ‘C’, ₹30,000 to apartment owners in Tower ‘B’, 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.

Ms. Priyanka said that the funds would be credited to Ms. George’s account very soon. She added that while there was some delay on the part of AWHO, the committee had been fast in processing it. 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.

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 Residents’ Welfare Association had also left out his name from the list of beneficiaries.

“As per the judgment, it is directed that the respondent [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.