clr/1986/1986_3_2681.pdf

(1)of The Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96—The restriction, which such schemes entail, have been imposed by law. 10 Constitutional Law—Equality —Constitution, Article 28—Restrictions of right of property entailed by zoning schemes based on reasonable classifications—Such schemes not inconsistent with Article 28. 15 Administrative Law—Discretion of administration —Judicial control—Principlesapplicable—Zoning scheme published under s. 14

(1)of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96—This Court will not substitute its views in the place of those of the administration. The present recourses are directed against the validity of zoning schemes imposed by respondents 2 and 3. 2681 CharalamDides v. Republic

(1986)Held, dismissing the recourses: (I) The sub judice zoning schemes do not entail deprivation of property, but only restrictions or limitations of the right of property, " which have been "imposed by law" in the sense of Article 23.3 of the Constitution, that is by virtue of sect'on 14

(1)5 of Cap. 96. Any consequential administrative implementation of such restrictions by means of the sub judice Notices published under s.- 14(t) does not render the restrictions incompatible with Article 23.3.

(2)The fact that the respondent Municipalities enlisted. 10 in view of the nature and magnitude of the schemes, the assistance of the Town Planning Department, does not lead to the conclusion that the schemes in question were imposed by the Government on the respondent Municipalities in a manner incompatible with s. 14

(1). 15

(3)The restrictions in question are not unreasonable and in any event this Court cannot substitute its own views in the place of those of the respondents.

(4)The restrictions in question are based on reasonable classifications and, therefore, they do not offend against 20 the principle of equality. Recourses dismissed. No order as to costs. Cases referred to* Manglis v. The Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 351; 25 Sofroniou v. Municipality of Nicosia

(1976)3 C.L.R. 124 Recourses. Recourses against the notices published under the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96 whereby certain restrictions were imposed in relation to the areas dis- 30 cribed in the notices as "tourist zones". A. Pandelides, for applicants in Cases Nos. 436/79 and 437/

1. 2682 3 C.L.R. Charalambides v. Republic A. S. Angelides, for applicants in Cases Nos. 310/80, 338/80, 364/80 and 381/
2. A. Poetis, for applicant in Case No. 355/
3. A. Panayiotou, for applicant in Case No. 362/
4. 5 M. Florehtzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for respondent
5. K. Chrysostomides, for respondent
6. G. Nicolaides, for respondent
7. Cur. adv. vitlt. 10 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment of the Court. This final judgment in all these cases, which have been heard together in view of their nature, must be read together with our interim judgment which was given in these proceedings on the 22nd February 1984* and the 15 contents of which we need not repeat. In accordance with the principles which were expounded in the majority judgment in Manglis v. The Republic,

(1984)3 C.L.R. 351, we are of the view that the sub judice zoning schemes do not entail deprivation of property, but 20 only restrictions or limitations of the right to property. We should, however, point out, in this respect, that our brother Judge Hadjianastassiou J., who has disagreed to a certain extent with the majority judgment in the Manglis case, continues to adhere to the views which he expressed in his 25 dissenting judgment in that case. The restrictions or limitations on the right of property which are complained of in these cases have, in our opinion, been "imposed by law" in the sense of Article 23.3 of the Constitution, because they have been imposed by 30 virtue of section 14

(1)of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96, and any consequential administrative implementation of such restrictions, by means of the sub * Reported in

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1516. 2683 Triantafyltides P. Charalambides v. Republic

(1986)judice in the present proceedings Notices, which were published under the said section 14

(1), does not render the restrictions in question incompat:bIe with Article 23.3 of the Constitution. The position in these cases is analogous to that of the administrative implementat:on of restrictions which were imposed by virtue of section 12 of Cap. 96 as street-widening schemes in Sofroniou v. The Municipality of Nicosia,

(1976)3 C.L.R. 124. 5 The reason;ng for the sub judice Notices emerges both from their texts and from relevant administrative records 10 which were produced before the Court. The zoning schemes in question were duly considered and adopted by the respondent Municipalities and were approved by the Council of Ministers, as envisaged by section 14 of Cap. 96; and, in th ; s respect, we reject as entirely unsubstantiated 15 the allegation of applicant in case 362/80 that the respondent Municipality of Larnaca was mot'vated by vindictiveness towards the owners of the affected properties. It is true that, in view of the nature and magnitude of such schemes, the respondent Munic'palities enlisted the techni- 20 cal assistance of the Town Planning Department, but we cannot accept as correct the contention of the applxants that because of the involvement of the Town Planning Department we should reach the conclusion that the said schemes were, in fact, imposed by the Government on the 25 respondent Municipalities in a manner incompat:ble with the proper application of section 14

(1)of Cap. 96. The restrictions entailed by the sub judice Not;ces aie not, in our op ; n : on. unreasonable, as alleged by the applicants; and, in any event, as an adnrnistrative Court we 30 cannot substitute our own views in the place of those of the respondent Municipalities and the Counc;l of Ministers as regards the technical aspects of the zoning schemes in question. Nor is it correct that the building zones created by the 35 sub judxe Notices result in the treatment of the properties affected by them in a discriminatory manner, contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution. Tn our opinion the restrictions entailed by such Notices appear to us to be based 2684 3 C.L.R. Chsralambides v. Republic Trlentafylltdes P- on reasonable classifications which do not offend against the principle of equality which is safeguarded by Article 28 of the Constitution. For all the foregoing reasons all these recourses are dis5 missed; but we shall not make any orders as to their costs. Recourses dismissed. No order as to costs. 2685