clr/1986/1986_3_2149.pdf

(1)(c) of The Streets and Buildings Regulntion Law, Cap. 96 The Limassol Municipality granted the applicants' application for the division of thcr land in the locality of "Ayios Georghios" into building sites, but on condition that the applicants pay £3,000, being part of the costs for the construction of a channel system for the rain vvatci in the area. The applicants paid the said sum under protest and filed the present recourse challenging the validify of the said condition. 15 Held, annulling the sub judice decision

(1)The pouci of the appropriate Authority to impose conditions with regard to the division of land for building purposes is regulated by s8(l)(c)* of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96 <· Quoted at pp 2152-2153 pest 2149 Meshitls and Another v. The Republic

(2)There is nothing in the aforesaid section empowering the appropriate Authority to demand the payment of a sum of money for the construction by such Authority of any works in the area. There is no doubt that in this case the respondent Authority assumed powers not given to it by the law. 5 Sub judice decision annulled. Costs in favour ofapplicants. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to impose on applicants the condition to pay the sum of £3,000.- as additional fees in order to grant to them a permit for the division of their land into building sites. 10 A. Neocleous, for the applicants. D. Vracha (Mrs.) for Y. Potamitis, for the respondent. 15 Cur. adv. vult. KOURRIS J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicants seek a declaration that the decision of the respondent Authority to impose on the applicants the condition to pay the sum of £3,000.- as additional 20 fees in order to grant them a permit for the division of their land into building plots is unlawful and in excess and/or abuse of power and devoid of any legal effect. The applicants are the registered owners of a piece of land consisting of six donums. two evleks and 2800 sq. ft. 25 at locality "Ayios Georghios" under Registration No. 73, Sheet Plan LIV/49.5.II within the municipal limits of Limassol and on 4.10.1984 they applied to the Limassol Municipality as the "Appropriate Authority" within the meaning of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 30 96, for a permit for the division of their land into building plots. The respondent Authority by a letter dated 31.7.1985 communicated to the applicants their decision to grant them a permit for the division of their land into building plots 35 2150 3 C.L.R. S Meshitis and Another v. The Republic Kourris J. provided that they paid the appropriate fees amounting to £415.- and provided they further paid an additional sum of £3,000.- being costs for the construction of a channel eystem for the rain water in the area (Exh. 1 attached to the application). The applicants refused to pay the sum of £3,000.- and consequently the respondent Authority refused to issue the said permit insisting on the payment of the said sum whereupon the applicants who wished to proceed with the 10 divis:on of their land into building plots paid the sum of £3,000.- under protest (Exhibit 2 attached to the appli­ cation) and they filed the present recourse. Counsel for the applicants argued that the power οϊ an appropriate Authority to grant permits is derived from 15 section 3(l)(c) of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law. Cap. 96 and under section 9(l)(c) of the Law thv\ are authorised lo impose conditions which are set out in the said section; he said that neither section 3fl)(c) nor section 9(I)(c) authorises the appropriate Authority to 20 require from an applicant the payment of a sum of money for the construction by the appropriate Authority of a channel system for rain water. 25 30 35 Counsel for the respondents by h's written addre>s contended that the appropriate Authority is authorised by the said law to impose upon a person who applies for a permit for the division of land into building plots, «the pay­ ment of a sum of money for the construction of works to be executed by the appropriate Authority. He went on .to say that the construction of this work has been estimated at £300,000.- and -that the L'masso! : Munic pality will bear the two thirds of the costs and the various owners of the land one third of the costs and that this undoubtedly is beneficial to the owners *of the .land who do not have to bear the whole amount of 'the constniction. However attractive this argument may 'be. it is, of course, no answer for the legal point raised by the applicants. I think it is pertinent, at this stage, to set out section!» 2151 ourri» J. Meshitis end Another v. The Republic

(1988)(l)(

1. c)and 9(l)(
2. c)of the Streets and Biddings Regulation, -aw, Cap. 96:Section 3(l)(c):"No person shall (
3. a)5 (
4. b)(c)Lay out or divide any land (irrespective of whether any buildings, other than buildings used solely for agriculture or forestry, exist thereon or not) into separate sites - 10 without a permit in that behalf first obtained from the appropriate Authority as in sub-section

(2)provided Section 9

(1):- 15 "In granting a permit under the provisions of s. 3, the appropriate Authority shall have power, subject to any Regulations in force for the time being to impose conditions as hereinafter, to set out in the permit that is to say- 30 (

1. a)(
2. b)(
3. c)with regard to the laying out or division of any land for building purposes conditions as to(
4. i)the demarcation and size of boundary marks; (
5. ii)the conveyance, installation and constant supply of suitable water which shall be sufficient, as 2152 25 3 C.L.R. 5 Meshitis and Another v. The Republic Kourris J. well as the operation of the installation of water supply hereinabove mentioned:- Provided that, in determining in any particular case, the sufficiency of water as above provided, regard shall be had to the needs of the area as a whole from which the supply is provided; (iii) the diversion of natural sources: and artificial water (
6. iv)the levelling of the site; 10 (
7. v)the construction of streets, ditches, bridges and culverts. (
8. vi)the widening of any street upon which the land, to which the application relates, abuts; 15 (vii) the securing of spaces for sub-stations in suitable circumstances; (viii)the securing of public green spaces: (
9. ix)the planting of trees and bushes in suitable circumstances; 20 (
10. x)the construction of underground channels and the laying of electric wire in suitable circumstances; (
11. xi)the installation of street-lighting in suitable circumstances." The power of the appropriate Authority to impose con25 ditions are set out in the said section 9 and nowhere it appears that an appropriate Authority is empowered to demand the payment of a sum of money for the construction by them (the appropriate Authority) of any works 2153 <ourris J. Meshitis end Another v. The Republic

(1986)o be carried out in the area. I have no doubt that the resjondent Authority assumed powers not given to it by the t\w. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the decision of he respondent Authority is contrary to the said law and /as taken in abuse of power. Consequently, the said conition is set aside. 5 Respondents to pay costs, to be assessed by the Reistrar. Sub judice decision annulled. Respondents to pay costs. 215* 10