Kochi: The legal battle over the Chander Kunj Army Towers in Kochi, a residential complex housing retired and serving army personnel that is in severe distress, has taken a new turn with the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) proposing to refund the cost of construction to the affected flat owners, leaving aside its long-held view that the crumbling structures could be retrofitted.

The AWHO, which built the controversial apartment complexes at Silver Sand Island in Kochi’s Vyttila, has proposed the refund plan in an affidavit submitted to the Kerala High Court. The flat owners have, however, challenged the plan, terming it a move to leave a ticking time bomb in their hands. 

The AWHO has made the latest proposal in the wake of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) recommending that the B and C towers of the Chander Kunj complex should be demolished as retrofitting cannot be an option for the two structures in severe distress. The AWHO’s retrofitting plan was based on a detailed study conducted by Bureau Veritas (BV), a private consultant and structural engineering firm. A section of flat owners challenged the plan, and the High Court appointed IISc to do a structural assessment of the buildings and review the BV’s plan. 

In the affidavit filed before the High Court in response to the IISc report, the AWHO states that demolition and reconstruction of the buildings would take at least nine years. The refund plan, the AWHO states, has been proposed to avoid further delay and uncertainties over the matter. The flat owners, who have opposed the AWHO’s stance on the issue, have questioned the refund plan and the reasons stated by the army organisation. 

What AWHO proposes
The AWHO arrived at the proposal to refund the construction cost of the flats and the parking space at a meeting of its Board of Governors on October 29. It conveyed the decision to the court in a document dated November 4. The organisation's proposed compensation ranges from around Rs 60 to Rs 70 lakh. It has also proposed to leave the Undivided Share of Land (UDSL) to the flat owners: “The allottees, who for some reasons do not wish to retain the undivided share of land, may opt to surrender the same, and they shall be compensated by paying the indexed cost of the amount paid by them towards the dwelling unit, from the date of possession,” the AWHO proposes.

“This respondent (AWHO) is left with no other alternative but to propose a refund of the cost of construction to its allottees and handover the UDSL to them, for them to avail the cost appreciation of land and take ahead the project as it deems fit and appropriate in the days to come,” the affidavit states. It said that as per the current estimate, it will spend approximately Rs 175 cr towards the proposed compensation to its allottees as against the total receipt of Rs 136 crore (approximate) from the project. It also said that “AWHO shall recover these funds by legal proceedings against the contractor, architect and the project director.”

“While AWHO will take time to recuperate its losses, it remains steadfast in standing with its brethren in this hour of crisis and will undertake all possible activities to ensure the protection of allottees' interest and making the firms (contractor, architect and project director) liable for its 

criminal breach of trust and failure to adhere to the provisions of various Memorandum of Understandings & Contracts in the days to come and shall share the recoveries with its allottees, as and when received,” the document states.

Owners seek better compensation
It is learnt from reliable sources that the residents association has filed a court objection to the proposed refund plan. Their demand is that the refund be fixed in tune with the current market price of the apartments in the vicinity of the Chander Kunj towers or that new flats be purchased for them.

The AWHO has opposed the view, saying the cost of the army towers cannot be compared with luxury apartments, as suggested by the petitioners against it. 

Col (retd) Ciby George, one of the petitioners against the AWHO, has raised his objections to the refund plan in a counter-petition. He has requested the high court to issue an urgent directive to the district collector to evacuate the inhabitants within a certain time frame. 

He said the AWHO's argument that reconstructing the buildings would take nine years was misleading. He cited completing a 907-apartment project just 100 metres from the disputed AWHO project in two years to refute the army organisation's claim. 

He said the amount proposed to be reimbursed to the buyers is less than the cost they paid. "Leaving the two unsafe buildings, which are like ticking time bombs in the hands of the buyers, is a cruel joke on the hapless buyers, and no sensible person would recommend or accept it," he said in his plea, dated November 19.