Chander Kunj Army Towers resident files contempt petition in Kerala HC against Ernakulam Collector for alleged non‑compliance

A resident of Chander Kunj Army Towers in Kochi has filed a contempt of court petition in the Kerala High Court against Ernakulam District Collector G. Priyanka for alleged non-compliance with the court order regarding evacuation, demolition and reconstruction of the twin towers.

Earlier this year, the court had dismissed the appeal petition and various related review petitions filed by the association and several property owners against the February 3 order of the Single Bench of the Kerala High Court, which had ordered the demolition and reconstruction of the twin towers due to serious structural problems.

Petitioner Ciby George, a retired Army Colonel and resident of Tower C of Chander Kunj Apartment, alleged that the Collector, who is also the chairman of the committee tasked with implementing the order, did not comply with the instructions in the order and did not vacate the flat, forcing him to live in an unsafe building where his life was under constant threat.

Under the terms of the order dated September 10, 2025, the committee is obliged to pay six months’ advance rent of ₹35,000 per month to the affected residents who own flats in Tower C, ₹30,000 per month to owners of flats in Tower B and ₹30,000 as relocation fee, to be deposited in an escrow account maintained by the Collector and involving the Army Welfare Housing Organization. (AWHO) credits the amount.

Meanwhile, Mr George is the only resident of the 208 affected flats who continues to live in the building because he has been denied rent and moving expenses. Others moved out after AWHO deposited the rent advance into the collector’s escrow account.

Realizing that Mr. George had been denied advance rent and relocation fees, the Collector directed AWHO to make immediate payment at the district committee meeting held on October 14. He claimed that the Resident Welfare Association had also removed his name from the list of beneficiaries.

“According to the decision, the respondent (Collector) was directed to finalize the buyback plan and carry out a comprehensive study to re-evaluate and re-evaluate the scale of the construction within a certain period of time. It was also instructed to strictly adhere to the timeline set by the respondent. However, the respondent did not implement these instructions. As a result, rent was paid to the owners who chose buyback to exit the project and they continued to consume the project funds without paying any price. The petition stated that while this petitioner’s lease was rejected on reasonable grounds, the buyback “The process has been delayed due to the delay in finalizing the acquisition plan, implementing the decision and taking back the plaintiff’s flat.”

The court will consider the petition on December 18.