(1981)1981 August 10 [L. Loizou, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION CHARALAMBOS MARKITSIS, Applicant, v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (CaseNo. 116/80). Administrative Law—Administrative decision—Misconception of— By means of the letterpurporting to conveyits contents which were different than contents of the letter—Therefore recourse directedagainstthe decision, as embodied in the letter, successful. This recourse was directed against a decision of the District Committee of Paphos for the Management of requisitioned Turkish Cypriot Properties taken at a meeting held on March 10, 1980, which was contained in a letter of the District Officer Paphos dated March 17,
- The said letter purported to 10 convey to applicant a decision of the above Committee revoking its earlier decision whereby certain vineyards, being requisitioned Turkish Cypriot properties, were ceded to him. It was contended by Counsel for the applicant and conceded by counsel for the respondent that the said letter was wrongly 15 written to the applicant because the decision which it purported to convey was never taken by the appropriate organ. Held,that the decision of the Committee of the 10th March, 1980, neither revoked nor did it in any way affect applicant's rights to the properties for the period they were ceded to him 20 as it clearly related to the next cultivating period and not to 266 5 3 C.L.R. 5 Markltsis v. A. G. the period covered by thefirstdecision ; that, therefore, it is clear that the contents of the letter of the 17th March, 1980, whichgaveriseto thepresent proceedings, is dueto amiscon ceptionof thedecisionof themeetingof the 10thMarch, 1980; accordingly this recourse must succeed. Subjudice decision annulled. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the District Committee for the Management of Turkish Cypriot properties revoking an 10 earlierdecision of the saidCommitteewhereby certainvineyards, being requisitioned Turkish Cypriot properties, were ceded to to him. A. Ladas, for the applicant. R. Gavrielides, Senior Counsel of the Republic,for the 15 respondent. Cur. adv.vult. L. Loizou, J. gave thefollowingjudgment. By this recourse the applicant seeks a declaration that the administrative act and/or decision contained in a letter dated 17th March, 1980, 20 addressed by the District Officer of Paphos to him purporting to convey a decision of the District Committee for theMana gement of Turkish Cypriot properties revoking an earlier decision of the said Committee whereby certain vineyards, being requisitioned Turkish Cypriot properties, were ceded 25 to him, is null and void ab initio and of no legal effect. The facts of the case in so far as they are relevant for the purposes of these proceedings are briefly these: At one of the meetings held by the District Committee of Paphos for the Management of requisitioned Turkish Cypriot 30 • properties held between the 14thJanuary and the 7th February, 1980 it was decided to cede to the applicant certain vineyards for him to cultivate and enjoy. The minutes of the meetings in question are exhibit 4 before this Court and the relevant part reads as follows: 35 "
- Στον Χαράλαμπο Μαρκίτσηπαραχωρούνται τα τεμάχια 609/1τοϋ35/34καΐ 134/1το035/26εκτάσεως 15-0-0αμπέλια από αυτά πού αφαιρέθηκαν άπό την Θάλεια Πρόβατα καθώςκαΐτότεμάχιο429 τοΰ35/49 εκτάσεως3-1-0 αμπέλια. 267 L. Loizou J. Markitsis v. A. G.
(1981)'Επίσης στον Χαρ. Μαρκίτση ενεκρίθη ή ενοικίαση αμπελιών εκτάσεως 22-0-0 σκαλών, γιά ενα χρόνο μέ ανανέωση, άπό αύτά πού διαχειρίζεται ή Διοίκηση αντί τοϋ ποσοΰ τών £10.- σαν ενοίκιο". ("
- To Charalambos Markitis there are ceded plots 609/1 5 of 35/34 and 134/1 of 35/26 of an extent of 15.0.0 vineyards (out of those that were taken away from Thalia Provata) and plot 429 of 35/49 of an extent 3-1-0 vineyards. There was also approved the lease of vineyards of an extent of 22-0-0 to Char. Markitsis out of those that are being managed by the 10 District Administration for the sum of £10 as rent"). On the strength of this decision on the 13th February, 1980, an agreement in the form of a licence (exhibit 6) was entered into between the Central Committee for the Management of Turkish Cypriot properties for and on behalf of the Republic 15 of Cyprus and the applicant. The term of the licence, as stated therein, was to expire on the 31st October, 1980, but would, in any case, automatically expire upon the termination of the requisition order relating to the properties in question; it was further provided that it could be terminated at any time by the 20 licensor and that the licensee would not in such a case be entitled to any damages. On the 7th March, 1980, the District Officer of Paphos in his capacity as Chairman of the District Committee for the Management of Turkish Cypriot properties at Paphos addressed a letter to the applicant in the following terms: 25 "Κύριε, 'Επιθυμώ ν' avctifepQS) στο θέμα τών Τ/Κ αμπελιών πού κατείχε ή εκτοπισμένη Θάλεια Πρόβατα στο χωριό Τέρρα καΐ τά όποΤα ή Ύπεπιτροπή 'Αναθεωρήσεως καΐ *Ανα8ια- 30 νομής των κλήρων παραχώρησεσέ σας κατά τήν νέακαλλιερ γητική περίοδο 79/80 καΐ νά σας πληροφορήσω ότι τοθέμα της πιο πάνω παραχώρησης βρίσκεται ύπό έπανεΕέταση. *Ωςέκτούτου καλεϊσθε δπως μή προβείτε στην καλλιέργεια ή τήν άΕιοποίηση τών πιο πάνω αμπελιών μέ οποιοδήποτε τρόπο μέχρι νεωτέρας είδοποιήσεως". (" Sir I wish to refer to the question of the Turkish Cypriot vine268 35 3 C.L.R. Markitsis v. A. G. L. Loizou J. yards that were in the possession of the displaced Thalia Provata at Terra village and which were ceded to you by the sub-Committee for re-consideration and re-division of the lots during the new cultivation period 79/80 and to inform you 5 that the question of the above cession is under re-considera tion. In view of the above you are requested not to cultivate or develop in any way the above vineyards until further notice" ) . 10 15 In fact at a meeting of the District Committee held on the 10th March, 1980, the minutes of which are exhibit 5the follow ing decision was taken in relation to the subject properties: "Ι. Άροδες α) Αναθεώρησε προηγούμενη απόφαση της γιααφαίρεση τοϋ κλήρουτης ΘάλειαςΠροβατδ στϊς 'Αράδεςπούμετοίκησε σέ άλλην 'Επαρχία καΐ απεφάσισε δπως κατά τήν νέα καλ λιεργητική περίοδο ό πιο πάνω κλήρος της παραχωρηθεί έκ νέουάφοΰπροηγουμένωςεγκατασταθεί μόνιμαστοχωριό". 0*
- Arodes (a) It revoked its previous decision for taking away the lot of 20 Thalia Provata at Arodes who settled in another district and decided that during the raw cultivation period the above lot be ceded to her afresh after she previously settles permanently at the village"). In consequence of this decision the District Officer on the 17th March, 1980, wrote another letter to the applicant purpor ting to convey the decision of the Committee to the effect that the original decision ceding to him the vineyards in question was no longer valid and informed him that he had no right to keep, cultivate or enjoy the said properties and adding that 30 any expenses already incurred by him in-relation to the said properties would be assessed by appropriate officers of the District Administration and would be refunded to him. There followed some telegrams of protest on behalf of the applicant and some other correspondence which are not, in my view, 35 necessary for the determination of the case as the crux of the matter is the true meaning and effect of the decision of the Committee taken on the 10th March, 1980, which is set out hereinabove. 25 269 L. Loizou J. Markitsis v. A.G.
(1981)The gist of the argument of learned counselfor the applicant in support of this case wasthat the letter exhibit1was written under a misapprehension in that it did not in fact convey the decision of the appropriate organ i.e. the Committee, which did not relate to the cultivating period 1979/80 i.e. the period 5 that the subject properties were ceded to the applicant, but to the period following that i.e. the cultivating period 1980/
- Learned counsel for the respondent felt constrained to concede that the letter exhibit I was wrongly written to the applicant and that the decision which it purported to convey was never 10 taken by the appropriate organ; and for this reason he did not consider it necessary to file any Opposition to the recourse. I have considered this case in the light of the argument advanced and the documents which are before the Court and I am satisfied that the decision of the District Committee of 15 Paphos for the Management of Turkish Cypriot Properties of the 10th March, 1981,neither revoked nor did it in anyway affect applicant's rights to the properties for the period they were ceded to him as it clearly related to the next cultivating period and not to the period covered by the first decision and 20 by the licence. If any confirmation of the intention of the District Committee of Paphos was required such confirmation has been provided by the District Officer himself who, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee, demanded payment from the applicant of the sum specified by way of rent when 25 the original decision ceding to him the properties in question was taken and duly collected same from him and this after the expiration of the cultivating period 1979/
- For all the above reasons it is clear that the contents of the letter of the 17th March, 1980, which gave rise to the present 30 proceedings, is due to a misconception of the decision of the meeting of the 10th March, 1980, and that, therefore, this recourse must succeed. In the result there will be a declaration in the terms of the prayer in the application. With regard to costs I think that, 35 in all the circumstances, it is fair that the respondents should pay the sum of £35 against applicant's costs. Sub judice decisionannulled. Order for costs as above. 270