1 C.L.R. 1988November 21 (SAWIDES,J ) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 1554OFTHE CONSTITUTION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY KERMIA PALACE ENTERPRISES LTD., OF NICOSIA, FOR LEAVETO APPLY FOR ORDERS OFCERTIORARI ANDMANDAMUSTOTHE DISTRICT COURTOFNICOSIA (HADJICONSTANTINOU. S D.J.) AND INTHE MATTER OFARULING DATED23.6.1988 MADEAND/ OR ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF NICOSIA (HADJICONSTANTINOU, S.D.J.) (ApplicationNo. 131/88). 5 Immovable property— The Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation)Law, Cap. 224, section 70(d)and (e)and section 80 — General valuationof land under section 70— Determination ofan objection by the Director—A decision withinthe meaning of ^decision»insection 80 — Therefore, an appeal lies to the District Court. Jurisdiction—Immovable property —Appeal from a decision of the Director—See Immovable property, ante. 10 15 20 The DirectorofLandsandSurveysassessed thevalueofapplicants' immovable property (plot 34) at Aytos Andreas Quarter, Nicosia at £215,000. The applicants objected. The Director reassessed the value at£300,000. The applicantsappealed unders.80 of Cap. 224 tothe DistrictCourt of Nicosia. Theappeal wasdismissed forlackofjurisdiction.Therelevantpart of thejudgment reads: «Therefore, once the sub judice decision of the Director according to paragraph
(4)of s.69{l) of the Law has no application it is not executory and it does not create or vary a legitimateresultorinterest,Ifindthatthecompanyhasnocause which canbetriedeitherbythisCourt orbytheSupreme Court byvirtue ofthe provisions ofArticle 146.1ofthe Constitution.» Having obtained the necessary leave* the applicants filed this application for Ordersofmandamus and certiorari. 'See
(1988)1C.L.R. 446. 659 In re Kermla Palace
(1988)Itiscommon ground in the present case that the valuation wasa general valuation and was made by the Director of Lands and Surveys pursuant to s.70 ofCap.224 which setsout the procedure for effecting a general valuation. Held, granting the.application:
(1)Under the provisions of s.70, paragraph (d), the valuation is 5 final and conclusive, unless the person affected objects thereto in writing to the Director within the specified period or unless the Director applies to the Court for the revision of same. The Director must consider undersub-paragraph (e)everyobjection made tohim and must give notice of hisdecision tothe person affected. JQ
(2)The decision of the Director in the case under consideration is adecision taken under theLawand assuch issubject toanappeal to the District Court under theprovisionsof s.80.
(3)Section 80 confers jurisdiction upon the District Court to deal with an appeal against the decision of the Director and the Court is 15 bound todealwithsuchappealunlesstheprovision ofthelawisheld to be unconstitutional, a question which was not raised by either party. Application granted. No orderastocosts. 20 Application. Application for an order of certiorari to remove into the S u p r e m e Court for the purpose of quashing a ruling and/or decision issued by the District Court of Nicosia (Hjiconstantinou. S.D.J.) given on the 23rd June, 1988 dismissing appeal/ 2 5 application No.43/86 by means of which applicant challenged a valuation and/or notice issued by the District Lands Office, Nicosia. P. Polyviou, for the applicant Gl. Hadjipetrou, for the respondent. 30 Cur. adv. vult S A W I D E S J. read the following judgment. On the 12th July, 1988, on an ex-parte application on behalf of the applicant in this case Igranted leave tothe applicanttoapply forordersof certiorari and mandamus against the ruling of a Judge of the District Court 3 5 660 1 C.L.R. InreKermia Palace Sawtdes J. of Nicosia dated 23rd June,
- In pursuance of such leave counsel forapplicant filed thepresent application praying for:(a)An order ofcertiorarito remove intothe Supreme Court for thepurposeofitsbeingquashedarulingand/ordecisionissuedby 5 the District Court of Nicosia, dated 23rd June, 1988 by meansof which the District Court of Nicosia dismissed appeal/application No.43/86 by means of which the applicant had challenged a valuation decision and/or notice issued by the District Lands Office of Nicosia. 10 (b) An order of mandamus directed to the District Court of Nicosia requiring it to hear and determine according to the law, appeal/application No. 43/86 filed before the District Court of Nicosia. The facts relevant to the present application are briefly as 15 follows: TheapplicantisacompanyregisteredinNicosiaanddeals,inter alia,with immovable property and the development thereof. Applicantistheowner ofpropertyunderregistrationNo.258at Ayios Andreas quarter of Nicosia, plot 34 of sheet/plan XXI. 20 46.4.IV, Part 26, of an extent of six donums, 2 evleks and 2300 squarefeet.TheDirectorofLandsandSurveysassessedthevalue of such property asat 1stJanuary, 1980at£215,
- Applicants object to such valuation and by letter dated 1st July, 1985, requested thereassessment of thevalueof the property. 25 On the 24th May, 1986, the Director of Lands and Surveys informed them that he revalued the property at £300,000.- as at 1stJanuary, 1980asagainstthe alleged bytheapplicant valueof - £550,000.- Applicant as a result filed an appeal by way of an application No.43/86 inthe DistrictCourtof Nicosia challenging 30 the decision of the Director of Lands and Surveys. Evidence was given on the part of both sidesand eventually the learned Judge after both sideshad closed theircaseasked thatwritten addresses should be filed. On or about the 3rd June, 1988, the Court addressed a notice 35 to both sides invitingargument whether the challenged decision was an administrative one or not, a question which was touching the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on the matter. Both counsel representing applicant and respondent, respectively, appeared before the Courtand argued thattherewasno question 661 Sawides J . In reKermla Palace
(1988)of an administrative act and/or decision, that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and thatjurisdiction inrespectof the matter in issue was vested in the DistrictCourt in accordance with the provisions of s.80 of the Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap224, asamended. 5 On 23rd June. 1988,the District Court ofNicosia delivered the reserved rulinginthematterbymeans ofwhichitheldthat neither the District Court not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the matter,withtheresult,ineffect, thatapplicant iswithoutaremedy. The reasons for concluding as above, as appearing in the 10 judgment of the learned trialJudge, read as follows: «Therefore, once the sub judice decision of the Director according to paragraph
(4)of s.69(
- l)of the Law has no anDlication itisnot executory and itdoes not create orvarya legitimate result or interest, I find that the company has no 15 cause which can be tried either by this Court or by the Supreme Court byvirtue of the provisions of Article 146.1of the Constitution.» In arguing his case counsel for applicant submitted that the ruling of the District Court of Nicosia isvitiated byerrors oflawon 20 the face of the record in that itholds that the District Court has no jurisdiction in the matter in question and that, furthermore, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as the act complained of isnot an executory act.Thus,applicant, according tothisdecision, isleft withoutaremedy.Thevaluationinquestion, 25 counsel submitted, was made by the Director of Lands and Surveys pursuant to s.70 of the Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap. 224, as amended, which provides that ifa person isaggrieved bya valuation he can object to the Director of Lands and that ifa final decision istaken by the 30 Director then under the provisions ofs.80 an appeal canbe made totheDistrictCourtbymeansofanapplication withinthestatutory period of 30 days. Counsel submitted thats.70 ofthe lawincombination with s.80 entitledtheapplicant tochallenge thefinal decision oftheDirector 35 by means of an appeal. Therefore, the finding of the trial Judge that such decision doesnotbringabout anyalteration tothe rights and obligations of owners of immovable property iswrong. It was conceded by both counsel that in the light of the 662 1 C.L.R. Inre Kermla Palace S a w i d e s J. provisionsofs.80ofthelawanappeal couldbemadetotheCourt from a final decision of the Director inthis respect. In the way that the trial Judge decided the case, counsel submitted, he treated the decision of the Director as a final and 5 binding decision without any right of appeal to the Court for testing itsauthority. Counsel finallysubmittedthatifanenactment onitsface confers jurisdiction upon a Court that Court can only refuse to take jurisdiction iftheprovisionofthelawisheldtobe unconstitutional. 10 In the present case there was no submission that s.80 which confers jurisdiction on the District Court on the matter in issue is unconstitutional. Counsel for the respondent agreed with the arguments advanced by counsel for applicant, adopted same and joined in 15 thesubmission thattheCourtwaswrongindeciding that ithad no jurisdiction under s.80 to deal with the appeal before it. Itiscommon ground inthe present case that the valuation was a general valuation and was made by the Director of Lands and Surveyspursuant tos.70 ofCap.224whichsetsoutthe procedure 20 for effecting a general valuation. In fact the learned trial judge . found that the valuation in question wasmade inthe process ofa general valuation of immovable property. Under the provisions of s.70, paragraph (d), the valuation is final and conclusive unless the person affected objects thereto in 25 writing to the Director within the specified period or unless the DirectorappliestotheCourtfortherevision ofsame.The Director must consider under sub-paragraph (
- e)every objection made to him and shall give notice of his decision to the person affected. Unders.80 ofthesame lawan appeal liestothe DistrictCourt. S.80 30 provides as follows: 35 «Anyperson aggrieved by any order, notice or decision of the Directormade, givenortaken undertheprovisionsofthis Law may, within thirty days from the date of the communication to him of such order, notice or decision, appeal to the Court and the Court may make such order thereon asmaybejustbut,savebywayofappealasprovided in this section, no Court shall entertain any action or proceeding on any matter in respect of which the Director is empowered toact under the provisions of this Law. 663 Sawides J . InreKermiaPalace
(1988)Provided thatthe Courtmay,ifsatisfied that owingtothe absence from the Republic, sickness or other reasonable cause the person aggrieved was prevented from appealing withintheperiod ofthirtydays,extendthetimewithinwhich an appeal maybe madeundersuchtermsandconditionsas 5 itmaythinkfit.» ThedecisionoftheDirectorinthecaseunderconsiderationisa decision taken undertheLawandassuch issubject toanappeal to the District Court under the provisions of s.
- S.80 confers jurisdiction upon theDistrictCourttodealwithanappealagainst 10 the decision of the Director and the Court isbound to dealwith such appeal unless the provision of the law is held to be unconstitutional, aquestion whichwasnotraisedbyeitherparty, who, on the contrary, submitted that the Court hadjurisdiction, nordidtheJudgetouchthequestionofunconstitutionalityofs.
- 15 IntheresultIhavecometotheconclusionthattheapplicanthas shown a good cause that an order of certiorari and mandamus should bemadeand,therefore,theapplicationsucceedsandthe ordersapplied forareherebygranted.Theorderofmandamusis directed to the District Court of Nicosia but the case should be 20 fixed before adifferently constitutedbench. In the circumstances and as the application has not been contested Imakenoorderforcosts. Application granted. No order asto costs. oc 664