3 C.L.R. 198? May20 [A LOIZOU. J ] INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION KOUYOUMDJIAN(PROPERTIES)LTD , Applicants, ν 1 THE MUNICIPALITY OF STROVOLOS, 2 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC, Respondents (CaseNo 306/86) AdministrativeLaw — Legalityof an administrative act — Should be judged in accordancewiththe lawinforceatthe hme of itstaking, unlesstherehas been an unreasonable delay on the part of die administrationin dealing with relevantapplication 5 Streets and buildings— Buildingpermit — Decision turningdown an application for — Legality of — Governed by the law m force at the hme when the decisionwas taken, unlesstherehas been an unreasonabledelayon thepart of the administration mdealingwithsuch application ConstitutionalLaw — Righttoproperty — Constitution, Art 233 10 15 TheapplicantCompanysubmitted on28 12 85 anapplicationfor aperniit toerecta six storeybuilding onaplotoflandsituatedinStrovolos On22 1 86 there were published in the Official Gazette new building regulations On 25 2 86 the said application was turned down on the ground that the proposed building didnotcomply withtheprovisions ofthenew Regulations Hence the present recourse 20 Held, dismissingthe recourse
(1)An administrative decision is generally issued in accordancewith thelaw applicable atthetimeof itsissue provided there is no unreasonable delay by the administration in determining the relevant application Inthiscase thematterwas dealtwith as expeditiously as reasonably possible
(2)The application of the new zoning provisions in this case does not amount to deprivation, but only to a limitation of the applicants' right of property within theambit of Art 23 3 of theConstitution. Recourse dismissed No order as tocosts 25 763 Kouyoumdjian v. Strovolos M/lity
(1987)Casesreferred to: Lordou v. TheRepublic
(1968)3C.L.R. 427; LoizianaHotels Ltd.v.MunicipalityofFamagusta
(1971)3C.L.R. 466; Panayiotopoulou -Toumaziv.Nicosia Municipality
(1986)3 C.L.R.35; Georghiou v.MunicipalCommittee ofLamaca
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2680. 5 Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to issue to applicant a buildingpermitforthe erection ofasix-storeybuilding on hisproperty at Strovolos. Chr.Chrysanthou, for theapplicants. 10 P.Lysandrou, for the respondents. Cur.adv. vult. A. LOIZOU J. read the following judgment. By the present recoursethe applicant Company seeks adeclaration of the Court that the decision of the respondents to reject itsapplication for a 15 building permit to erect a six-storey building on plot No. 1844, sheetplan XXI.62.E.1inStrovolos,isnullandvoidandofnolegal effect whatsoever. The applicant Company which isthe owner of the above plot, submitted on the 28th December 1985, an application for a 20 building permit to erect a six storey building on the aforesaid property. Twenty-five days later new building regulations came intoforceintroducingrestrictionsasregardstheheightofbuildings and the building ratio,which were published inSupplement 111 to the Official Gazette of the Republic on the 22nd January 1986, 25 under Notification 8/86, under section 14
(1)of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96, as amended. On the 29th January 1986, a meeting was held at the Department of Town Planning to consider the matter of the applications submitted before the 22nd January
- It was 30 decided, having obtained legal advice from the office of the Attorney-General, that the applications for building permits submitted between 22nd December 1985, and 22nd January 1986, be returned to the appropriate Authorities with a recommendation to reject them if they do not comply with the 35 provisionsof thesaid new regulations.. 764 3 C.L.R. Kouyoutndjian v.Strovolos M/Iity A. Loizou J. The application of the applicant Company was considered by the appropriate authority - in this instance being the Strovolos improvement Board - on the 25th February 1986, and it was decided that itbe rejected. 5 By letter dated 26th February
- the respondent Board notified theapplicantCompanythatitsapplicationwasrejected as the proposed plans which had been submitted did not conform with the provisionsof the Lawinrespect of the building ratio. The present recourse which was filed on the 30th April 1986, 10 was filed as against the Municipality of Strovolos which had by virtueofNotification 66,published inPartIIItotheOfficial Gazette ofthe Republic,No.2125onthe21stMarch, 1986,under section 4 of the Municipalities Law 1985, (Law No. I l l of 1985) as amended by Laws Nos. 1, 2, and 25 of 1986), replaced the said 15 Improvement Board. It was argued by the applicant that the respondent wrongly applied the law as applicable on the date of the sub judice decision,butthatinsteaditshould haveappliedthelawinforce on the date of the application. The case of Georghiou v. Municipal 20 Committee ofLamaca
(1985)3C.L.R 2680,wascitedinsupport. It was contended that the respondent acted thus arbitrarily and contrary to the principles of good and proper administration, because this Notification 8/86 was being given a retrospective effect. 25 Finallyitwascontended that the sub-judice decision iscontrary toArticle23ofthe Constitution inthat itresultsinadeprivationof property. The principles pertaining the matter of the law applicable concerning the issueofbuildingpermitshavebeen considered by 30 thisCourtonnumeroustimesinthepast,thebasicprinciplebeing that an administrative decision isgenerally issued in accordance withthe lawapplicable atthe timeof itsissueprovided there isno unreasonable delay by the administration in determining such application. Such principles are extensively considered in the 35 cases of Andriani Lordou v. Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 427, LoizianaHotelsLtd., v. MunicipalityofFamagusta (197'1)3C.L.R. 466;Panayiotopoulou -Toumazi v.NicosiaMunicipality
(1986)3 C.L.R. 35; therefore I need not repeat them. Suffice it to saythat inthepresent caseIfindnounreasonabledelayon behalf 40 of the administration. On the contrary they appear to have dealt 765 A.LoizoaJ. IU«qmMn«pMv.Strovotoa M/Hty
(1987)with the matter asexpeditiously as reasonably possible.I would therefore Concludethattherespondent correctlyappliedthelaw inforce atthetimeofitsdecision.Idonotconsiderthatthecase of Georghiou(supra)altersthelegalpositionasexplainedabove, asitmustbetakentohave.beendecidedontheparticularfactsof 5 thatcase. Finally Ifindthat the sub-judice decision wasnot contrary to Article23asitdocs notamounttoa deprivation ofthe owner's rightsOfpropertybuttheapplicationofthenewzoningprovisions in the present case amounts to nothing more than a mere 10 limitationorrestrictionwhichiswithintheambitofArticle23.3of theConstitution. Forthereasonsstatedabove,thisrecoursefails,and ishereby dismissed but in the circumstances.there will be no order asto costs. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. y 7*6 15