(1987)1987 May 25 [PIKIS, J.) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHE CONSTITUTION, DOROSA. IEROPOULOS, Applicant, v. THEDISTRICTLANDSOFFICEROFLIMASSOL, AND/OR THEDIRECTOROFLANDS OFFICEOFUMASSOL, Respondent. (CaseNo. 292/86). Acts or decisions in the sense of Art. 146.1 of the Constitution — Immovable property, transferof — Assessingits value invirtueof the power under The Department of Lands and Surveys (Feesand Charges)Law, Cap. 219, as amended by Laws 81/70, 61/73, 31/76 and 66/79 for the purpose of determining the relevant transferfees — Outsideambit of Art. 146.1. 5 RevisionalJunsdiction under Art.146.1 —Recourseseeking adeclarationthat the value of the subject immovableproperty was equal to itspurchaseprice,i.e. £34,000 — 77J;SCourthas nopower to issuesuchadeclaration under Cap. 219 or any other law. Applicant purchased a building at Limassol for £34,000 butin exercise of his powers under Cap.219, as amended,the respondentDirectorassessed the value of the property at£50,000 and, as a result, the transfer fees were levied onthebasis of such value. 10 As a result the applicantfiled thisrecourse,seeking: (a)Adeclarationthat the value of theproperty onthe date of itspurchase was £35,000, and (b)A 1 5 declaration thatthedecision,whereby itwas valued at£50,000 for purposes of collection of transfer fees iswrong, inexcess of power and unreasonable. Held,dismissingthe recourse:
(1)The nr-ίprayer does notraise forreview an executory decision norisitinthepower ofthisCourttomakedeclarations concerning the value of immovable property under Cap.219 or any other law. Examined in conjunction with the second prayer, the first prayer becomes superfluous.
(2)Thedeterminationof thevalue of immovable property for the purpose of assessment of transfer fees is of little interest to the general public. The 830 20 3 CX.R- 5 10 leropoulos v.Dlstr. I,g"<f*Officer L'ssol primary purpose is the determination of applicant's obligation by way of transfer fees and not the promotion of an objective of public interest. In recognition of this approach the law confers a civil remedy, i.e. an appeal unders.80 of the Immovable Property (Tenure,Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap.224 (First proviso to section 3(b}(iv)of The Table tosection3 of Cap.219,asamended bys.2of Law66/79).
(3)Assuming that this Court is free, in the absence of a submission of unconstitutionality of the aforesaid provision, to decide the jurisdictional aspect, thisCourt unhesitatingly rules that the subjudice decision isoutside theambit ofArt. 146.1 Recourse dismissed. Noorder astocosts. Casesreferredto: Republic v. M.DM. Estate
(1982)3 C.L.R. 642; 15 Kalisperasv. MinistryofInterior(\9&2)3C.L.R. 509. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent whereby the value of a building at Limassol was fixed at an amount of £50,000.= forthepurposesofcollection oftransfer fees. 20 /.Kam'inara (Mrs.), for the applicant. Ch. Kyriakides,Counsel ofthe Republic, for the respondent. Cur.adv. vult PIKIS J. read the following judgment. Recitation of the relief prayed for reveals that the decision sought to be reviewed is 25 outside the jurisdiction of thisCourt and for that reason itcannot be heeded, The declarationssought are:(a)a declaration that the value of a building at Limassol on the date of its purchase was equivalent to its purchase price, namely, £34,000.-, and (b) declaration that the decision of the respondents whereby it was 30 valued at an amount of £50,000.- for purposes of collection of transfer fees.is wrong,inexcessof power and unreasonable. The facts leadingtothedisputeare the following: Applicant purchased a building at Limassol for £34,000.- In 35 exercise ofthe powersvested inhim bytheDepartment of Lands 831 Pikis J. leropoulos v. Distr. LandsOfficer L'ssol
(1987)and Surveys (Fees and Charges) Law -Cap, 219 (asamended)*, theDirectorrejected thepurchasepriceasunrepresentative ofthe marketvalue ofthe landand proceeded toassessitsvaluefixingit provisionally at£60,
- When the inquiry into the market value ofthelandwascompleted, thepropertywasassessedat£50,000.- 5 and corresponding transfer fees were levied. The present proceedings are designed to challenge that decision embodied in a notice to theapplicant dated 11.2.
- Thedecision of the Director was primarily founded on the sale of comparable properties duly adjusted toreflect market trends atthematerial 10 date. The objection to the assessment is also based on the valuation ofthe land made byafirm ofChartered Surveyors and Property Consultants. Although thejusticiabilityofthesubject matteroftherecourseis not raised bythe respondents asanissueinthe proceedingsitis, 15 nonetheless, necessary for the Court to examine it on its own initiative asitaffects thecompetence ofthe Court. Article 146.1 does notconfer unlimited jurisdiction ontheSupreme Courtto review administrative action but limits its competence tothe review ofadministrative action inthe domain ofpublic law.That 20 domain isprimarily charted bytheinterest of thepublic in the particulararea ofadministrativeaction.Twofairlyrecentdecisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Republic v.M.D.M. Estate**and Kalisperasv. MinistryofInterior***provideaguidewheretheline should be drawn. They decided that decisions of the Lands 25 Department fixing the reserved price for purposes of the Immovable Property, Cap. 223 (as amended)****, are inamenable to review under Art. 146.1 because they primarily affect thecivil rights ofthe parties immediately affected thereby. The interest of the general public in the soundness of
- administrative action, intheparticulararea,wasoflimited purport while the conferment of civil law remedies to the parties immediatelyaffected offered institutionalprotectiontotheinterest of the public inensuring that theAdministration operates within the limits of the law.To qualify for review under Art. 146.1, 35 administrative action must affect the interest of thepublic ina widerperspectiveandreflectthepolicyoftheadministrationinthe area under review. *ByLaws81/70, 61/73, 31/76 and 66/
- "
(1982)3C.L.R.642(F.B.) ***(1982}3C.LR.
- ·*·*Section 8,Law 60/
- 832 3 C.L.R. leropoulosv. Distr. Lands Officer L'ssol Pikis J . Asfarasthefirstprayerisconcerned,itdoesnotofitselfraise for review anexecutory decision norisitinthepower of thisCourt to make declarations about thevalue of immovable propertyunder Cap. 219 or as far as Iam aware, any other law. Examined in 5 conjunction with the second prayer, the first prayer becomes superfluous asthepropermarketvalue oftheimmovable property inqutstionisatthecoreoftheadministrativedecisionsoughttobe set aside under prayer Έ ' . The determinationof thevalue of the immovable property for the purposes of assessment of transfer 10 fees is of little interesttothegeneral public.The primary purpose sought to be served by the decision is the determination of the financial obligations of the applicant by way of transfer fees; a matterpar excellence referable totheobligations of theapplicant and nottothepromotionof an objective of wider publicinterest. 15 In recognition of this juristic appreciation of the matter, the law confers a civil remedy totheparty affected thereby, an appeal to the DistrictCourt underthe provisions of s. 80 of the Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap. 224*. There is no suggestion that the first proviso to s. 3(b)(iv) of the 20 Table to s. 3 providing for an appeal to the L.R.O. is unconstitutional for breach of the provisions of Art. 146.
- Assuming I am free to decide the jurisdictional aspect- in the absence of a submission of unconstitutionality in view of the positive provisions of Art. 146.1 defining its jurisdiction Iwould, 25 for thereasons indicatedinthisjudgment, unhesitatingly rulethat thesub judice decision is outside the revisional jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt. Inview of my decision, itwould be unwise toprobe thements of theassessment, a course thatmight affect proceedings before 30 anotherjudicial body assuming leave is granted toappeal outof time**. Intheresult therecourse is dismissed with noorderas tocosts. Recoursedismissed. No orderas to costs. * Tableto s 3,Cap.219,asamended bys.2 ofLaw66/
- ·*See ImmovablePropertyO'enun, Registrationarit Valuation)Rules 1956-OfficialGarette. Supplement Ho 3,No.622,p.
- 833