Kerala High Court: The writ petitions were filed by the owners and the association of the owners of the apartments, situated at Silver Sand Island, Vyttila, Kochi, against the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (‘AWHO’) and others. A Single Judge Bench of Mohammed Nias C.P., J. opined that the distress to the apartment towers was undeniably human induced, causing significant loss and suffering due to cumulative violations of regulatory, structural, and environmental standards. The Court thus, after considering the expert reports, the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 (‘the 1994 Act’), the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (‘the 1999 ’), and the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (‘the 2005 Act’) and the order passed by the Collector, opined that there was no alternative but to direct AWHO to demolish and reconstruct Towers B and C to prevent casualties and protect lives and properties.
Background
AWHO, a society, aimed to provide quality and affordable housing to Armed Forces personnel (serving and retired), war widows, and family members of martyrs. In 2013, AWHO, after purchasing the land in Silver Sand Island, started construction of dwelling units for defence personnel and their children. An advertisement for allotment of dwelling units to be developed was issued, following which several applications were received. The project commenced in April 2013 and was completed in July 2018.
In November 2019, some of the residents raised concerns regarding seepage and water leakage, in some areas of the buildings of Towers B and C of the residential complex. The first repair work took place in 2019 which was carried out by FOSROC India. Thereafter, further concerns regarding structural stability were raised by the allottees and the Residents Welfare Association appointed a Rectification Board, to study the issues being faced by the residents and prepare a report thereof for rectification of the same. The experts/bodies conducted inspections and prepared reports as the allottees raised concerns about the construction.
IIT Madras submitted the report and directed immediate evacuation of all the residents from Towers B. Further, the detailed reports and investigations concerning the structural integrity of Towers B and C of the “Chander Kunj Army Towers” revealed a complex situation regarding building safety, primarily driven by significant corrosion issues linked to high chloride content in the concrete. A later evaluation by IIT Madras highlighted that continued occupancy possessed serious risks to residents because of significant corrosion levels and evacuating residents from Towers B and C was recommended due to urgent safety concerns.
Thereafter, police complaints were filed by owners to SHO Maradu leading to the registration of FIR. On 29-03-2024, the Collector, on finding severe damage caused to the building requiring retrofitting by AWHO, issued the following directions, (a) eviction and alternate accommodation; (b) retrofitting works within 10 months and to hand over to the allottees; and (c) even after retrofitting, the AWHO would be responsible for the building. Thereafter, based on the suggestion of the parties, by an order dated 19-06-2024, this Court appointed IISc, Bengaluru as the expert to conduct a structural audit and to offer views on the BVIL Report, to provide pros and cons of retrofitting and the cost of a similar construction. It was further stated that a thorough impact assessment was required before proceeding with the demolition to evaluate its effects on Tower A, central facilities, and nearby infrastructure like Kochi Metro Rail Pillars.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the Inspection reports revealed a lack of quality control during construction, with no documentation of mandatory tests for materials like steel, aggregates, and cement. Further, Bureau Veritas India Pvt. Ltd. identified high chloride content in concrete and rapid carbonation as primary causes of distress, corroborated by IISc, Bengaluru’s final report, which was accepted by AWHO. The report of the Internal Vigilance Officer found that the issuance of the building permit and the occupancy certificate were illegal and recommended cancellation of the occupancy certificate. The Court noted that it was not disputed, that the building was in such distress that no retrofitting was possible.
The Court opined that it was indeed unfortunate that the victims of all the illegal actions were the Army personnel. The Court stated that the people sign up to join the armed forces with considerable enthusiasm and a sense of patriotic duty and this entailed a conscious decision to put their lives on the line and be prepared for the ultimate sacrifice of their lives. Therefore, the Court opined that it was indispensable that all state functionaries, including military officers, uphold the highest standards of safety and well-being, physically and mentally for personnel and to treat every member of the armed forces with dignity and honour at all times. Any lapse in these standards could erode confidence, undermine morale, and create feelings of injustice among service members.
The Court noted that the Collector issued order on 29-03-2024 under the 2005 Act, directing immediate evacuation and instructing AWHO to comply. The Court opined that the distress to the towers was undeniably human induced, causing significant loss and suffering due to cumulative violations of regulatory, structural, and environmental standards. Further, continued occupation poses grave risks, necessitating immediate evacuation to ensure community safety. The Court after considering the expert reports, the 1994 Act, the 1999 Rules, and the 2005 Act, and the order passed by the Collector, opined that there was no alternative but to direct AWHO to demolish and reconstruct Towers B and C to prevent casualties and protect lives and properties.
The Court allowed the petition and modified the order of the Collector as follows:
-
The Collector was directed to constitute a committee comprising of experts including an experienced Structural Engineer, two owners from the Residents Association, an experienced Engineer from the Municipality concerned, an experienced Officer from the Town Planning Department and such other personnel necessary for a proper implementation of the demolition and reconstruction of the towers with equal size and facilities. The said committee will decide the modalities for evacuation of the allottees, for demolition, and reconstruction of the Towers in question.
-
The committee would have the power to make the appropriate choice of technology, including architectural and structural designs and a project impact assessment, for the demolition and reconstruction and to ensure that it did not affect the communities in the affected areas or the neighbourhood. This included setting clear timelines for evacuation, demolition, and reconstruction to avoid unnecessary delays.
-
AWHO could also seek permission to construct additional floors/additional areas on the same site where the towers were situated, subject to the provisions of the relevant Building Rules, to enable them to offset the expenses incurred in the demolition and reconstruction.
-
The AWHO would pay the owners of Tower B and C, who were residing as of 29-03-2024, Rs 21,000 and Rs 23,000 respectively per month towards the expenses for alternate accommodation until reconstruction.
[Ciby George v. Collector, WP(C) No. 40178 of 2023, decided on 03-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Advocate Ciby George, Party-In-Person
For the Respondents: C. Anchala, George Cherian, Sabu M R, Fasilul Fahmida K., P.T. Mohankumar, Advocates
