(itt?) ]')s") Maicli i(> •TRIAMAI Y l l IDF-N P ' INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION GALAT1AN1 LTD ANDANOTHER Applicants, 1 THEMUNICIPALITY OFPAPHOS, 2 THECOUNCILOFMINISTERS, Respondents (CasesNos 348/81,349/81,350/81, 351/81,352/81) Streets and Buildings — Building zones— Changing in favour of applicants p.c existing zones — Decisions in mattersof technical nature —Judicial contr >l — Pnnciples applicable — Court cannot examine the ments of such decisions Streets and Buildings — Building zones - Whether applicants should have been afforded opportunity to present their views — The Town and Country Planning Law 90/72, providing forsuchanopportunity, not applicable to the present case— Section 14
(1)of the Streetsand Buildings Regulation Law, Cap 96does not envisage suchan opportunity 5 Constitutional Law — Equality — Constitution, Art 28 — Building zones — 1() Complaint ofdiicrimmatory treatment visavisownersnot affectedthereby— The principle of equality does not exclude reasonable dishnctions or differentiation's Cohstitutional Law—Right toproperty — Constitution Art 233—Building zones ~- fjtminuhon of value ofapplicants 'property —A matter for thecompetent 15 Court The factsof thiscasesufficiently appear intheJudgment of the Court Recourse dismissed No order ash co&s. 2044 3 C.L.R. Galatianl Ltd. v. M'lity Paphos Casesreferredto· Eraclidou v. TheCompensation Officer
(1968)3 C LR 44Ceorghiou ν TheMunicipalityof Nicosia
(1973)3 C LR.53. Manglisv. TheRepublic
(1984)3 C.L.R 351: 5 Charalambides v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C L.R 2681 Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondents regarding building zones affecting applicants' properties. L. Kythreotis,for applicants. 10 K. Chrysostomides, for the respondent
- CI.Antoniades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for respondent 2 Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP. readthefollowingjudgment. By means 15 of thepresentrecourse theapplicantsare challenging adecision of the respondent Municipality of Paphos regarding building zones, which was taken with the approval of the respondent Council of Ministers andwas published intheOfficial Gazetteof the Republic on 7August
- 20 Prior to the sub judice building zones there were in force, affecting theproperties of the applicants,building zones published in theOfficial Gazetteof theRepublic on 7January
- The new building zones of 1981 improved toacertain extentin favour of the applicants and other affected property owners the 25 building zones of
- Counsel for the applicants has complained that the improvements effected by means of thesub judice building zones of 1981 were insufficient. As this Court, as an administrative Court, cannot go into the 30 merits of administrative decisions in matters of technical nature (see, inter alia, in this respect, Eraclidou v. The Compensation Officer,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 44, Georghiou v. The Municipality of Nicosia,
(1973)3 C.L.R. 53, Manglis v. The Republic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 351 and Charalambides v. The Republic,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 2045 TriantafyUldes P. Galatiani Ltd. v. M'lity Paphos
(1987)2681) and as it has not been shown to my satisfaction that the respondents have exceeded the limits of their discretionary powers I cannot interfere judicially with the building zones in question on the ground ofanythingwhichisrelated totheir ments ->rdements 5 Ithasbeen submitted, further, bycounsel for theapplicants that the sub judice decision was reached without affording to the applicantsthe opportunity tomake representations as envisaged by the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Law 1972 (Law 90/72) The said legislative provisions were not, however 10 applicable to the present cases and, therefore, the respondents had no duty to afford to the applicants an opportunity to present theirviews, norwassuch a dutyenvisaged bysection 14
(1)of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap 96, under which the subjudice building zones were published 15 It has, also, been argued that the zones complained of were adopted in contravention of Article 28 of the Constitution in that there has resulted discnminatory treatment of the applicants as compared to owners of land not affected by the said 2ones and which isadjacent to thepropertiesofthe applicants 20 Reasonable distinctions or differentiations as between the propertiesoftheapplicantsandthose ofotherland ownersarenot excluded by the said Article 28 and the applicants have failed to convince me that they are the victims of unequal or unfair treatment due to the adoption of the sub judice building zones 25 (and,see inthisrespect, interalia,the Georghtou case,supra, and the Charalambides case, supra) In concluding I would like to stress that any restnctions or limitationswhich wereimposed onthepropertiesofthe applicants by virtue of the buildingzonesmquestion appear tocome within 30 Article23
(3)oftheConstitution and anyalleged diminution ofthe value of the properties of the applicants is a matter to be considered by the competent Court (see, inter alia, the Manghs case, supra) In the light of all the foregoing Ihave reached the conclusion 35 that the present recourses cannot succeed and are dismissed accordingly, butwith no orderastotheir costs Recourses dismissed No orderasto costs 2046