(1988)1988July23 [STYLIANIDES,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION CONSTANTINOS G.YIALLOUROS, Applicant, v. 1.THEDISTRICTOFFICER OFNICOSIA, ASCHAIRMANOFTHEIMPROVEMENTBOARDOFYERI, 2.IMPROVEMENTBOARDOFYERI, Respondents. (CaseNo. 579/86). Streets andBuildings—Building permit—Street WideningScheme nothaving been deposited orpublished undersection 12of theStreets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96 or under The Townand CountryPlanning Law, 1972 (Law90172)—In improving conditionsasregards thepermit, such a scheme cannot be relied upon—Section 9
(1)(b) (xiii) of Cap. 96, as 5 amended byLaw 24178—Doesnot substitute theprovisions ofsections 12 and 13ofCap.96relating toStreet WideningSchemes. Constitutional Law—Right toproperty—Constitution, Art. 23—Cession of part ofimmovableproperty (soastobecomepart ofthestreet)madeaconditionfor grantingabuildingpermit—Whetheritconstitutesa"deprivaiion" \Q or merely a "restriction "or "limitation"oftherightofproperty—A questionofdegreedependingonthecircumstancesofeachcase. Thefacts of thiscase need notbesummarized.Thelegalprinciplesexpounded by theCourt inannulling thesubjudicedecision,thatistheimpositionofcertainconditionsinabuildingpermit,aresufficiently indicated in the hereinabove headnote. It must benoted that theground of annulment was thattheconditionswereimposedinvirtueofastreetwidening scheme, which wasneitherdeposited norpublishedin accordancewith section 12of Cap.96.TheCourt did notaccept thatsuch conditions wereimposedinviolation ofArt 23oftheConstitution. *<- Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderasto costs. 1518 ->n 3 C.L.R. Yiallouros ν,Distr. Officer N*sia Casesreferredto: Orphanides andAnother v. The ImprovementBoardofAyiosDhometios
(1979)3CL.R. 466; '. ' '. PaphosPlantationsv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2745; Sarkisv. TheImprovementBoardParalimni
(1986)3C.LR. 2457; The Holy Seeof Kitium v. The Municipal 'Council of Limass'ol, 1 R.S.C.C.15; KirzisandOthersv.'TheRepublic
(1965)3C.L.R. 46; .JhymopoulosandOthersv. TheMunicipalCommitteeofNicosia
(1967)3 C.L.R.588; ' -* · Sofroniou andOthersv. TheMunicipalityofNicosiaandOthers
(1976)3 C.L.R. 124; ' '' ' 10 SimonisandAnotherv. TheImprovementBoardofLatsia
(1984)3 C.L.R. 109. 15 Recourse. -J' „ Recourseagainsttheimpositionofconditionsinthebuilding permitgrantedtoapplicantfor theerectionofatwo-storeydwell inghouseatYerivillage., ' . 1 G.Yiallouros,fortheapplicant. 20 M. Christofides, forthe respondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYUANIDESJ.readthefollowingjudgment. Theapplicant is theregisteredowneroflandsituateatYerivillage,shownon D.L.O.MapsasPlot 881,Sheet/PlanXXX/16.E.2, Block C,12 1519 Stylianides J. Yiallouros v. Distr. Officer N'sia
(1988)donumsinextent.Itis within building ZoneH2(seeNotification 3/79 undersection 14
(1)of theStreetsandBuildings Regulation Law, Cap.96,asamended(hereinafter referred "theLaw"),pub lished in Supplement ΙΠ(Γ) of theOfficial GazetteNo. 1493,of 5th January, 1979). 5 On 19th April, 1984, the applicant applied totheappropriate authorityfor abuilding permit,undersection 3
(1)(b)of theLaw, for theerectionof atwo-storey dwelling-house. Theapplication was accompanied by all documents prescribed by the relevant Regulation. (SeeExhibit 1-B617/84.) 10 After dueconsiderationandonpaymentof theprescribed fees, building permit No.018714 was issued on 23rd January,
- Theappropriateauthority,however, imposedconditions,someof which werestrongly objected toby theapplicant.By alongpeti tion of his advocates, dated 19th February, 1986,-he requested 15 therevision andrevocation of theconditionsimposed andespe cially conditions2and4 (i),(ii)and (in). Conditions2 and4wereas folows:"
- Theproposed fence to beerected on the street-widening alignment (στηγραμμήτηςρυμοτομίας)." 20 "4.Thepartsof theplot affected by thewidening scheme(τη ρυμοτομία) to be ceded for the widening (για τη διεύρυνση) of thepublic streets, in accordance with the provisions of section 9
(1)(b)(xiii) of Law, Cap.96and thefollowing constructionstobemade:- 25 (i) on the part of theproposed road with future width 42 feet toplaceprefabricated concretekerbstones andpave ment9 feet widewith prefabricated concreteslabs 0.40 X o.40 metres and theremaining part to be asphalted with premix, in accordance with the technical instruc- 30 tions- category "A" - attached hereto. 1520 3 CX.R. Yiallouros v. Distr.Officer N*sia Stylianides J. (ii)On thepartof the proposedroadwith future width60 feet to place prefabricated concrete stones andto'constructa pavement8feet widewithprefabricated slabs0.40 X 0.40 metresandthe remainingpartthereof to beasphaltedwith premix. (iii)The'arcof the curveof the building sitesatthe roadjunc tions tobeofradius30feet andthe arcsof the bendof the kerbstobeanalogousanilof30feet radiusatleast." The Respondentsreconsidered thecase'arid onthe'adviceof the TownPlanningandHousingDepartment("theDepartment") reachedanewdecisionwhichwas communicatedtotheapplicant on 8thJuly, 1986; Itreads:"The ImprovementBoardofYeridecidedtoreplaceconditions ' 4and 5of the buildingpermitwiththe followingcondition:Newcondition 4:Thepartof the plotalongthenorth- eastern side, which is affected by the street - widening.(τη ρυμοτομία)',whichis shownwithcohtiriuousgreen lineon the attachedsurvey plan,tobeceded for thewidening of the publicroad(section9
(1)(b)(xiii) of the Law, Cap. 96) aridthefollowingto'beconstructed:' v (a) On thepart shown in yellow colour pavement 8 feet widealong thefrontage of the streetwith'future width 60 feet andpavement 6,feet along the side-road with • 'kerbs arid'concreteslabs0.40 X 0.40 andtheremaining parttobeasphaltedinprernix, accordingto thetechnical instructionsCategory "A" attached.Alongdiecurvethe twopavementstobejoinedsmoothly. ,. (b)Onthepartof the plotshown inredcolourtobe con' ' stmcted'wim concreteKerbstones earthenpavement8 r ' '•' T ' feet wide." l ' ' '• ~' ' -: . . , : : . ' • > ' • · ' , . . ' . · ; • .- • - . . * . Condition 5,which was notobjected'to; was not'altered, but 1521 • •• Stylianides J. Yallouros v. Distr.Officer N* sia
(1988)was re-numberedfor nogoodreason4 (γ). Condition2was left unaffected. Attached totheletterof 8thJuly, 1986, therewas a siteplan onwhichaline was drawn allalongthenorth-eastern boundary of thelandof theapplicant-325feet long-which is markedwith 5 the Greek word "ρυμοτομία"("street alignment").The street alignmentdoes notranonly along theboundary with thepublic road, but turns to the west in plaintiff 's land along thesouth boundarywith theadjoining plot
- Theapplicantbeing aggrievedfiledthis recoursewhereby he 10 prays fon"Adeclarationof theCourtthatthedecisionof the Respon dentscontainedin theirletter,8thJuly, 1986,is nulland voidandofnolegaleffect whatsoever." In his address learned counsel for theapplicantrelied onthe 15 followinggrounds:(a)Thecondition was imposed contrary tosection 12of the • Law. (b)Itwas takeninabuse orexcessof power. 20 (c)ItiscontrarytoArticle 23oftheConstitution,asitamounts to deprivation of property and nooffer of compensation wasmade. (d)Itisbased onamisconceptionof fact. It is comrrion ground that noplans relating to widening or straighteningof streetsweredepositedorpublished undersection 25 12 of theLaw, or pursuant to theprovisions of theTown and CountryPlanningLaw, 1972 (Law No.90/72). 1522 3 C.L.R. ·.; • Yiallouros v. Distr. Officer N*sia · . " •• / Stylianides J. ': ..· .·. .r.i:^' Condition 2, original condition 4, as well as the new condi tion'4, are identically-worded'with the comments/advice of the Department'-'(see Conditionsblue 26^blue 35,Minutes2 and 18 inExhibit'B617/84)Mn thecommentsof that Department of 20th l : ! June,-1984, we read:- ' ' ' :·:• "
- To τεμάχιο αυτό επηρεάζεται από σχέδιο ρυμοτομίας και .στα δύο οδικά σύνορα'όπως δείχνεται με πράσινο 'ι μελάνι πάνω στα τοπογραφικά σχέδια'στη σελίδα 1 του φακελλου." ' '' ' .(72.This plotis affected by a street alignment scheme onboth . its boundaries with,the,streets.as it is shown, with green ink on the.site plans.") ,tr . ; . , · * -> - r ,'... • ,;Condition l i s identical.with paragraph 4;(a). - ι. ., Condition 2 is identical with paragraph 4 (b);and·••'·* /J *' ; ' ? Condition 4 is iaenticalwith' paragraph 4 (e)(i)," (ii), (iii)of the ^dcommerits/adviceV'1· * ' ; '';~· '• 'K> • ·'' : In the comments on the objection of applicant's counsel on 19thFetfruafy,' 1986, thisDepartment wrote,1interalia:, ;."
- By thek letter theadvocates of(theapplicantraised objec- . tion toconditions2 and4 of building permitNo.E. 018714, dated 23rd January, 1986, which refer tothe ceding of parts f ,,of their,plot for the-widening and continuation of the net .. work.of-the area andJhe erection ofjhejence on the street - · Λ widening alignment (γραμμήρυμοτομίας) and theirproper^ formation." "
- After careful re-examination of thecase Ihave reachedthe conclusion thattheconditionreferred tointheobjection:x··.'· u : : :J " ν «r> v.' - •>"'• •·.. ί 1523 Stylianides J. Yiallouros v. Distr.Officer N'sia
(1988)(i)shouldbeimposedasconditionsfor implementationon •the development of thewhole plot 881 by building or conversion into building sites. This file refers to the building development of only a small part atthe north corner.Consequently,nowconditionsmay beimposed 5 whichrelatetoworksonthepartof theplottowhichthe present application refers and the remaining works which should be done may be imposed as conditions gradually in theprocess of thedevelopment of the re mainingpartof theplot. 1Q (ii)Theconstructionworksprovided by the conditions im posed are indeed disproportionately very high com paredwith thecostsof theerectionofthebuilding." The above was followed by thesuggested new condition4, whichwasadoptedintotobycirculationofpaperbythemembers 15 of theRespondentImprovementBoard. Itisplainthattheconditionwas imposedtosatisfy the require mentsof astreet-widening schemeexistingonly attheoffice of theDepartment, whichis notbindingandhasnolegalforce. Thecontrolling paragraph tobothdocumentsof thisDepart- 20 mentisparagraph2oftheComments, whichreads:"Thisplotis affected by astreet- widening scheme (σχέδιο ρυμοτομίας)." All thesuggestions of theDepartment andtheconsequential decisionsof theRespondentswereintendedtoputintoeffect that 25 scheme. Theproposedbuildingwillbeerectedatthenorth-easterncor ner. TheRespondentsby thesubjudicedecisionimposed acondi tion for widening (60feet) andconstructionof a street 325 feet 30 1524 3 C.L.R. Yiallouros v. Distr.' Officer Ν' sia StyIiaηides J. long andeven further tomake a side-road in plot 881 of the'appli cant along its-boundary with plot 420 and tocede all theextent to die public streets.', , '' ' ' ": ',T ' It is well settled that the appropriate'authoriry has no right to require a person who applies'for a permit to*erect a building on land notaffected'by a street - widening scheme to do,with con nection with that land,'anything that is not required by'scheme having actual legal force, as distinct from a'scheme existing only on paper. , (Orphanides and Another v. The Improvement Board ofAyios Dhometios
(1979)3 C.L.R. 466; Paphos Plantations v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R.'2745; Sarkis v. Improvement Board Paralimni
(1986)3CX.R. : 2457.) ' .<*.*:·>_ · • >'• • ; ; The Respondents contended that they exercised their power1 under section 9
(1)(b) (xiii) of the Law as amended by Law 24/ 78. Ifr e a d s : - v ; * " ' *' ' : .' ·"-''"" . T l "9
(1)In granting a permit under the provisions of section 3 of this Law, the·appropriate'authority shall have power, subject to any'Regulatiohs in force for the time being; toimpose condir ' ' tions as hereinafter,' to be set out nVthe permit,thatis to say - ' , (b) with regard.to theerection of any new building orad. ditibn, alteration or repair to'any existing building, J ' conditions as to- (xiii) A widening, continuation and construction of the street'net work in appropriate cases." " A. Loizou, J . , as he then was, in Paphos Plantations v. Republic (supra) referring to section'9
(1)(b) (xiii) said the follbw1*525 StylianidesJ. Yiallouros v. Distr.Officer N'sia
(1988)ingatp.2755:" tomyminditsprovisionempoweringtheappropriate Authoritytoimposeconditionsregarding thewidening,continuationandconstruction ofthestreetnet-workinappropriatecases haveto beapplied inthe light of Article23of the 5 Constitution andcannot substitutetheprovisionscontainedin sections 12 and 13of the Law relating to the widening or straighteningofstreets." Iaminfull agreementwiththeabovepassage,whichIadopt. It is notnecessary for this casetoexamine theextent of the 10 powers of the appropriate authority under this statutory provision.Themagnitudeoftheadjustment totheroadandthecreation oftheside-road,inthecircumstances,arenotjustified underthe provisionsofsection9
(1)(b)(xiii). Inthecircumstancesofthisparticularcase,asexplainedearlier 15 inthisJudgment,Ihavecometotheconclusionthattheappropriateauthority exceeded itspower,in thepurported exercise ofa powerundersection9
(1)(b)(xiii)theyflagrantly actedinderogation andorcontrarytotheprovisionsofsection 12and 13 and their-act ordecision is the product of abuse of power. TheRe- 20 spondentsdidnotexercisecorrectly theirdiscretion underparagraph (xiii)andthesubjudicedecisionwasnotreasonablyopen tothem. Afurther questionthatfollowsforconsiderationiswhetherthe cessionof thepartoftheapplicant'splot,aspercondition4,to 25 thepublicstreetwithoutcompensationamountstoanactof"deprivation" undertheprovisionsofArticle23,ortoa"restrictionor limitation"underparagraph3ofthisArticle. Noteveryinterference withtherightofpropertyasdefinedin paragraph 1of Article 23of theConstitution isa "deprivation" 30 withinparagraph2thereof;suchinterference mayamountonlyto a "restriction"or"limitation" withinthemeaningofparagraph3 1526 3 C.L.R. Yiallouros v. Distr. Officer N*'sia Stylianides J. 10 ofthatArticle,and'whether itissoornotisaquestionofdegree. Relevanttothisrespect areTheHolySeeofKitiumand TheMunicipal Council ofLimassoll 1R.S.C.C. 15;Nico's Kirzis and2 Others and The Republic of Cyprus
(1965)3C.L.R:46;Demetrios ThymopoUlosand Others y: The Municipal Committeeof Nicosia
(1967)3C;L.R.588;NeophytosSofroniou arid Others v.Municipality of Nicosia and Others
(1976)3C.L.R. 124.Orphanides and Another v.TheImprovemtn Board ofAyios Dhbmetios (supra) and Simonis andAnother v.Improvement Board ofLatsia
(1984)3C.L.R.
- . · . . < * . jc ^Inthelightof theaboveauthoritiesandbearinginmindtheextent of applicant's plot and theextent of the part that he would havetocedetothepublic,undercondition 4of thepermit, Iam oftheview thatitisnotadeprivation butarestrictionorlimitation as.envisaged byArticle,24.
- 5 The requirement of applying for a building permit undersection 3 of Cap. 96 is connected with the right of property safeguarded byparagraph 1 of Article 23,which includes therightto possess andenjoy poperty. 20 25 30 Paragraph 2 of Article 23 provides that nodeprivation orrestriction or limitation of any such right shall bemade exceptas provided inthesaid Articleandparagraph 3thereofprovides: "Restrictions or limitations which are absolutely necessaryin the interest of the public safety or the public health or the public moralsorthetown andcountry planning orthedevelopmentandutilization of anyproperty tothepromotion ofthe publicbenefit orfor theprotectionoftherightsofothersmay beimposed bylawontheexerciseof suchright." It is noteworthy and significant that whereas "deprivation" is specifically mentionedinparagraph 2inaddition to"restrictionor limitation" paragraph 3provides only for "restrictions or limitations". 1527 StylianidesJ. Yiallouros v.Distr. Officer N* sia
(1988)Ineachcasewhereabuildingpermitisappliedforitisaquestion of fact andofdegree,dependinguponthecircumstancesof theparticularcasewhetherthedecisionoftheappropriateauthoritythereonamountstoa"deprivation" (withinthemeaningofthe aboveprovisions) and which canonly beachieved underpara- 5 graph4ofArticle23,orwhetheritamountsto"restrictionorlimitation"(within themeaningoftheaboveprovisions)whichcan only be imposed under paragraph 3of the said Article - (The HolySeeofKitium andTheMunicipalCouncilofLimassol(supra)atpp.27and28). Fortheabovereasons thisrecoursesucceeds.Thesubjudice decisionisdeclarednullandvoidandofnoeffect. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Subjudicedecision annulled. Noorderastocosts. 1528 10