1968 Aug. 23 PHOTTNI

JEYIANNl AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS) [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.]

THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION PHOTINI

JEYIANNl AND ANOTHER, Applicants, and THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS, Respondent. (Case No. 268/68;. Requisition of property—Acquisition of property—Construction of anew road—Orderof requisitionof landfor thesaidpurpose and

respect of whichlanda notice of compulsoryacquisition hadalreadybeenpublished—

viewofthenatureoftheproperty affected and the urgency of the matter, there is nothing unconstitutional. illegal or

abuse or excess of powers

the relevant works being commenced and pursued pursuant to the Order of requisition—See, also, below. Requisition—Order of requisition of land—Validity—Construction of a new road—Representations for alternative ways duly considered—Onerous

terference—Duty to choose the less onerous way when

terfering compulsorily with private property—Such duty hasto befulfilled

the light of all relevant considerations—Principlesapplicable—Suchconsiderationsduly taken

to account

theinstant case—Requisition—Compensation has to be paid "promptly" under Article 23.8 (d) of the constitution, not

advance as required under Article 2 3 . 4 ^

cases of compulsory acquisition—"Promptly"

Article 23

.8(d) cannot be construed as meaning simultaneously with the order of requisition, or with thetaking of actionthereunder by the requisitioning authority. Constitutional Law—Requisition and acquisition of land—Article 23, paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Constitution—Requisition— Prompt payment of compensation under Article 23.8(d)—Meaning—Onerous

terference—Duty to choose the less onerous way when compulsorily

terfering with private property—Principles applicable—See also above. Compulsory acquisition—See above. 482 Wordsand Phrases—"Promptly"

Article 23.8(d) of the Constitution.

1968 Aug. 23 "Promptly"—Prompt payment of compensation

cases of requisition of property—Article 2"$&(d) of the Constitution— See above.

JEYIANNl PHOTINI AND ANOTHER V. REPUBLIC (MnramiY OF Recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution—Costs—Award of costs against Applicants

a proper case—Controlling, through costs, the proper exercise of the right of recourse. Costs—Award of costs against Applicants—See above. By this recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution the Applicants challenge the validity ofan Order of requisition published on the 12th July, 1968in the Official Gazette (Supplement 3, Not. 474), affecting part of the property of Applicant I under Plot 55 as shown on the map Exhibit 8. A week earlier i.e.on the 5th July, 1968, a Notice of compulsory acquisition concerning the same part of Plot 55was published

the Official Gazette (Supplement 3, Not. 468). The public benefit purpose for the sake of which both steps were taken is the construction of a new road. The Applicants have attacked the validity of the said order of requisition on three main grounds:

that compensation therefor has not been paid promptly to the Applicants.

connection therewith.

planning the road

question there has not been chosen the less onerous way of doing so. It is common ground that the construction of the said road is

progress and it is about to

terfere with Plot 55. Dismissing the recourse, the Court :Held,

the circumstances of this case,

cluding particularly the nature of the property affected (viz. Plot 55) and the urgency of the matter, and

the light of the case of Aspri and The Republic, 4 R S.C.C. 57, I find nothing 483 COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS) Aug. 23 ΡΗΟΠΝΙ ΙΝΙΕΥΙΛΝΝΙ AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS) unconstitutional, illegal or

excess or abuse of powers

the relevant works being commenced and pursued pursuant to an Order of requisition, for thetimebeing, oncethe relevant Notice of compulsory acquisition has already been published, too.

progress and an offer will be made to them as soon as possible. Bearing

mind that under Article 23.8(d) of the Constitution compensation

cases of requisition has to be paid "promptly", and not

advance as under Article 23.4(c)

cases of acquisition, I cannot find that there has been, as yet, such delay to offer or pay compensation to the Applicants as to amount to a contra­ vention by Respondent of the Constitution. (b) I cannot construe "promtply"

Article 23.8(d) as meaning simultaneously with the order of requisition or with the taking of action thereunder by the requisitioning authority.

terfering compulsorily with property, has to be fulfilled

the light of all relevant considerations,

cluding thecriteria which should lead to the proper decision regarding the planning of the relevant project. (b) Moreover, this duty had to be fulfilled

the light of the onerous

terference with other affected properties; the course of the new road as a whole had to be looked

this respect, and other properties should not have been un­ necessarily and more onerously

terfered with

order to ameliorate somehow, if at all, the

terference with the said Plot 55. I am satisfied that this aspect of the matter, also, has been rightly approached by the Respondent.

which costs should be awarded against Applicants; a line has to be drawn somewhere

controlling, through costs, the proper exercise of the right of recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution. I, there- 484 fore, award to the Respondent £30 costs against the Appli cants. Recourse dismissed. Order for costs as aforesaid. Cases referred to: Aspri and The Republic,4 R.S.C.C.

1. Recourse. Recourse against the validity of an order of requisition concerning part of the property of Applicant
2. P. Laoutas, for the Applicants. K. Talarides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent. Cur. adv. vult, The following Judgment was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.:

thiscase the Applicants challenge the validity of an Order of requisition, which was published on the 12thJuly, 1968intheofficial Gazette,(3rd Supplement, Not. 474). This Order of requisition—as well as a Notice of compulsory acquisition, published on the 5th July, 1968,

the official Gazette (3rd Supplement, Not. 468)—concerns only part of the property of Applicant I, which is shown as plot 55 on the map exhibit 8. The public benefit purpose for the sake of which both steps were taken is the construction of a new road, which is described as the Karavas-Lapithos by-pass road, and it is

tended to lead directly to Kyrenia, from the present Myrtou-Lapithos road, without going through the villages of Lapithos and Karavas. The affected area of plot 55 is one donum

extent; it is about 300 ft. long and 40 ft. wide. Applicant 1 owns also an adjoining property, appearing on exhibit 8 as plot 17 (actually, it is plot 17/10). Applicant 2 is the owner of two other adjoining properties, appearing on exhibit 8 as plot 42 and plot 17/4. 485 1968 Aug. 23 PHOTINI

JEYIANNl AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS) 1968 Aug. 23 PHOTTNI

JEYIANNl AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS) On plot 17, there exists now a seaside bar and restaurant business belonging to Applicant 2, who, apparently, since 1961, has had the

tention of building a far larger tourist enterprise complex, by using both plots 42 and 17; he has applied since 1961 for the relevant building permit, and though it has not yet been granted to him it does not appear that he has taken any legal steps

respect of this matter. Applicant 2 has a registered right of way, 18 feet wide, along the eastern boundaries of plots 55 and

1. None of the aforesaid properties, other than plot 55, is affected, as such, by the sub judice Order of requisition, or the related Notice of compulsory acquisition, or by the road which will pass through plot
2. It is common ground that the construction of the new road is

progress and it is about to

terfere with plot 55. I should say, at this stage, that

the circumstances of this case,

cluding particularly the nature of the property affected, viz. plot 55, and the urgency of the matter, and

the light of the case of Aspn and The Republic(4 R.S.C.C. p. 57), I find nothing unconstitutional, illegal or

excess or abuse of powers

the relevant works being commenced and pursued pursuant to an Order of requisition, for the timebeing, oncetherelevant Noticeof compulsory acquisition has already been published, too. The Applicants have attacked the validity of the Order of requisition on three grounds: First that it contravenes Article 23.8(d) of the Constitution,

that compensation therefor has not been paid promptly to the Applicants. Secondly, that no due regard was paid to the protests of the Applicants against the manner

which the said road will cross plot 55, and to their suggestions for alternative ways

which plot 55 could be

terfered with

constructing the road; and, that, therefore, the Order of requisition was made

excess and abuse of powers. Thirdly, that

planning the road

question and

consequently affecting plot 55, there has not been chosen the less onerous way of doing so. I have had the benefit of hearing evidence

this case from the Senior Roads Engineer, Mr. M. Iordanous, who has been

charge of the project of this new road—which is shown marked

red on the map exhibit 8—as well as 486 from Mr. Palmiris, a P.W.D. Executive Engineer, who is again dealing with this matter. I have also heard evidence from an expert called by the Applicands, Mr. E. Avraam, who has produced a plan (exhibit 1and 1A)

dicating how the road

question could follow a different direction, so as to affect, according to him,

a less onerous manner plot 55. Dealing with the first point raised by the Applicants, it has been stated by counsel for Respondent—and it does not seem to be disputed by the other side—that the process of assessing the compensation due to the Applicants is

progress and an offer willbemadeto them assoon aspossible. Bearing

mind that under Article 23.8(d) of the Constitution compensation has to be paid promptly, and not

advance as under Article 23.4(c) of the Constitution, I cannot find,

the particular circumstances of this case, that there has been, as yet, such a delay to offer or pay compensation to theApplicantsastoamount toacontravention by Respondent of the Constitution. I cannot construe "promptly" as meaning simultaneously with the Order of requisition, or with the taking of action thereunder by the requisitioning authority. Coming, next, to the second point raised by the Applicants, it is

evidence by Mr. Palmiris that he went on the spot—to plot 55—where the Applicants were present, he heard their views, and he

vestigated the alternatives suggested by them, but found that it was not possible to adopt them; therefore, I fail to see how it can be said that no due regard was paid to the representations of the Applicants. Lastly, 1 have to deal with the question of whether or not the less onerous,

the circumstances, manner has been chosen,

the course of

terfering with plot 55. Bearing

mind the nature of plot 55, 1am of the view that there would be, practically, no vital difference, as regards onerous

terference,

whatever way the road might cross through it, so long as the two remaining separate parts of such plot could still be reasonably used for purposes of cultivation or building purposes; and the way

which the road marked on exhibit 8 is to cross plot 55 does not prevent either of the two remaining parts of plot 55 from being used as aforesaid. 487 1968 Aug. 23 PHOTINI

JEYIANNl AND'ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS) 1968 Aug. 23 PHOTINI

JEYIANNI AND ANOTHER V. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND W O R K S ) The duty to choose the less onerous way, when

terfering compulsorily with property, has to be fulfilled

the light of all relevant considerations,

cluding the criteria which should lead to a proper decision regarding the planning of the relevant project; and Iam quite satisfied, on the eviden­ ce of Mr.Iordanousand of Mr. Palmiris, that such duty was duly discharged. Moreover, this duty had to be fulfilled

the light of the onerous

terference with other affected properties; the course of the new road as a whole had to be looked

to

this respect, and other properties should not have been unnecessarily and more onerously

terfered with,

order to ameliorate somehow, if at all, the

terference

the case of plot 55; again,

the light of the evidence adduced for the Respondent,Iamsatisfied thatthis matterwas approached rightly as regards this aspect. The evidence of Mr. Avraam, who was called by the Appli­ cants, though honestly given, has not managed to tip the scale

favour of the Applicants, on this point of the onerous

terference. Regarding this point much play has been made, by the Applicants, of the fact that future tourist development plans of Applicant 2 will be affected.

the first place, I find that such plans should be treated, on the material before me, as a too remote consideration; but even if they were to be treated otherwise, the fact remains that he does not

tend to build,

furtherance of such plans, on plot 55 itself, but on his adjoining property plot 42, and on the other property of Applicant 1, plot 17; thus, Ϊ cannot really see how,

so far as Applicant 2 is concerned, it can be argued that a less onerous way should have been chosen by the Respondentinplanningthenew road

question and crossing, thereby, plot 55. Applicant 2 has,

deed, a right of passage along the eastern side of plot 55, but he will still be able to use it, subject to having to cross the new road, irrespective of how such road crosses plot 55. The assessment of the compensation due to the Applicants for the

terference with their proprietary rights by the sub judice requisition Order is a matter for a civil Court, and nothing which I have said

this Judgment should be taken as prejudging such issue,

the least; I leave it entirely open. 488 For all the foregoing reasons I have found no merit

this recourse and I dismiss it accordingly.

my opinion it was all along a matter of compensation and nothing more; and, therefore, it is a proper case

which costs should be awarded against the Applicants; a line has to bedrawn somewhere

controlling, through costs, the proper exercise of the right of recourse under Article 146. I, therefore, award to the Respondent £30 costs against the Applicants. Application dismissed. Order for costs as aforesaid. 489 1968 Aug. 23 PHOTINI

JEYIANNI AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS)