(1988)1988December22 [MALACHTOS,DEMETRIADES,PIKIS,PAPADOPOULOS,HADJ1TSANGARIS, CHRYSOSTOMIS,JJJ THEMUNICIPAL COMMITTEEOFLIMASSOLANDOTHERS, Appellants-Respondents, and 1.MARIA S.PANTAZI, 2. HELENA G.PANAYIOTOU, 3.MARTHA CHR. PAPACHRISTOFOROU, Appellants-InterestedParties, v. PKVOS GRIVASANDOTHERS, Respondents-Applicants. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealNo. 749). StreetsandBuildings—Divisionpermit infavour ofinterestedparties subject toaconditioninvolvingconstructionofaroadonapplicant'sland—Excess of powers. Timewithin whichtofilearecourse—Recoursefiledon21.6.1986impugning validity ofdivisionpermit issuedinfavour oftheinterestedparties—Trial 5 Judge entertained doubts whetherapplicants knewof thepermitprior to 105.1986—On thematerialplaced beforetheCourt,it isevidentthatthe applicants knewofthepermit asearlyasJanuary,1986—Recourseoutof time. Time withinwhich to file to recourse—Theperiod of75days (Art. 146.3 of 10 the Constitution}—Aprovision mandatory in naturethat cannot be bypassed. Thefacisof thiscasesufficiently appearin thejudgmentoftheCourt. Appeal allowed Woorderastocosts. 2552 15 3 C.L.R. Mun. C ttee L*ssol & Others v. Griva Casesreferredto: .Panayides and Othersv.TheRepublic
(1988)3CJL.R.2435. Appeal. AppealagainstthejudgmentofaJudgeoftheSupremeCourt 5 ofCyprus(Loris,J.)givenonthe8thOctober, 1987(Revisional JurisdictionCaseNo.399/86)*wherebythedecisionoftheMunicipalCommitteeofLimassoltoissueadivisionpermittotheinterestedpartieswasannulled. Y.Potamitis,for appellants-respondents. *0 E,Theodoulou,fortheappellants-interestedparties. Ph.Pitsillides,forrespondents-applicants. Cur. adv. vult. MALACHTOSJ.:ThejudgmentoftheCourtwillbedelivered byHadjitsangaris,J. 15 HADJITSANGARISJ.:Thisisanappealfromadecisionofa JudgeofthisCourtwherebyheallowedarecourseandannulled thedecisionoftheMunicipalityofLimassoltograntadivision permitunderNo.21231dated6.7.84totheInterestedParties. Thesaidannulmentwasbasedonthegroundthatthedivision 20 permitinvolvedaninterferencewiththepropertyrightsoftheapplicantsinthataconditionwasimposedbytheMunicipalityentailingtheconstructionofaroadbytheInterestedPartiesonpart oftheapplicantsproperty.Conditionswereimposedaffecting the rightsoftheapplicantsintheirabsenceandwithoutregardtotheir 25 views. • (Reportedin
(1987)3CLJt. 1448). 2553 Hadjitsangaris J. Mun. C ttee L'ssol & Others v.Grivas
(1988)Thefactsofthecaseclearlyrevealthatindeedoneoftheroads envisaged bythepermitwouldhavetobeconstructed inpartof theapplicants'property. Hadthisbeentheonlyissueintheappealwewould beclearly inclinedtorulein agreementwiththejudgment atfirstinstance 5 thatthepermitinquestionisvoidabinitioforthereasonthatrespondentsactedinexcessoftheirpowers. However,thefirstandmaingroundofappealisthattheCourt offirstinstanceerredinholdingthattherecoursewasnotoutof timebydecidingthatithadnotbeensufficiently establishedthat 10 theapplicantshadfull knowledgeofthenatureandextentofthe permitpriortothetimewithinwhicharecoursecouldhavebeen filed. Arecoursewasfiledbytheapplicantsonthe21.6.86andthe applicantsallegedthereinthattheycametoknowofthepermiton 15 10.5.86.Thelearned Judge considered thaton theevidencebefore himtherewasdoubtwhetheranyof the applicants had full knowledgeofthe permitbeforethe 10.5.86resolvedthisissuein favour oftheapplicants. Itisonthispoint'that wetakeadifferent view.Itisclearthat 20 theapplicantshadfiledanapplicationunderNo. 9/86ofthe DistrictCourtofLimassoldated21.5.86againsttheMunicipalityof LimassolandtheInterestedPartiesonthesameissue.Insupport of the said application applicant No. 1PhivosGrivas sworean affidavit dated29.5.86tothe effect thathewas fully authorizedto 25 sweartheaffidavit onbehalfof all theapplicantsandfurther he (testified that theapplicants hadbeeninformed about thepermit and its consequences on their property by the end of January 1986following whichtheysubmittedtheirobjectionstothe MunicipalityofLimassol. The same applicant admitted in hisevidence before thetrial Courtthathe knewof the existenceofthe permitasearlyasJanuary 1986; 2554 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Mun.Cttee L'ssol &Others v. Grivas HadjitsangarisJ. Ourconclusiononthesefactsisthattheapplicantsmustclearly betaken tohavehadknowledgeof thepermitanditseffect on theirproperty sinceJanuary 1986andthuscannotavoidtheimplicationsfromtheaffidavit madeontheirbehalf.Consequently thereappearstobenojustification fortheviewthatthetimefactor isindoubtwiththeresultthattherecoursefiledbytheapplicants onthe21.6.86wasoutoftime. ThetimeprovisionsofArticle 146
(3)aremandatoryandcannotbeby-passedaswehadopportunitytoreiterateintherecent appeal-R.A.754-PanayidesandOthersv.Republic-
(1988)3 C.L.R.2435. In the face of evidence that applicants - appellants cameto knowofthedecisionandfailed tochallengeitwithin75dayswe have no alternative but to allow the appeal and dismiss there15 courseasraisedoutoftime. Intheresulttheappealisallowed.Therecourseisdismissed withnoorderastocosts. Appealallowed. Noorderastocosts. 2555