clr/1988/1988_3_489.pdf

(1982)1 C.L.R.426; 489 Hadjitheodossi v. Minister of Interior

(1988)Valana v.TheRepublic, 3R.S.C.C. 91; ReMoschatos

(1985)1 C.L.R. 381; Ramadan v.E.A.C. andAnother, 1 R.S.C.C.

1. Recourse. Recourse againsttherefusal oftherespondent topartition ap- 5 plicant'simmovablepropertyunderregistration No.2520dated 29.9.72 under the provisions of section 29 of the Immovable Property(Tenure,Registration andValuation)Law,Cap.
2. K.TalarideswithE.Mitsingas,fortheapplicant. CI.Theodoulou(Mrs),SeniorCounselof theRepublic,for therespondent. Cur.adv.vult. LORIS J. read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicant in the present recourse is and wasat all material times the registered ownerby virtue of Registration No.2520dated 29.9.72,of 3/4 15 shares undividedly in immovable property situated at Prodromi* village of Paphos District, at the locality "Latsi", covered by Survey Reference: Plot 143 of Sheet/Plan XXVI/
3. The remaining 1/4 shareundividedly isand wasatallmaterial times registeredinthenameofacertainSherifeHanoumMoullaAhmet 20 Sherif,aTurkish Cypriot ladywho,according totheversionof the applicant, isresidingeversincetheTurkish invasion inthe occupied by the Turkish invaders, area of the Republic of Cyprus. On 22.5.84 the applicant applied to District Lands Office 25 Paphos, (vide Appendix A) where her aforesaid property is situatedandappliedforthepartitionofsamepursuanttotheprovisionsofs.29of theImmovableProperty (Tenure,Registration and Valuation)Law,Cap.
4. 490 3 C.L.R. Hadjitheodossi v. Minister of Interior Loris J. On 166.84 theDistrictLandsOffice Paphosaddressed aletter to counsel acting for applicant, (vide Appendix B) refusing the partition applied for on the ground that no service of thenotice could beeffected toall concernedas provided by theLaw, (obvi5 ously thenoticeenvisaged by s. 32 Cap.224). On 4.7.84 counsel acting for applicant submitted another application (Appendix Γ), addressed this timetotheDirectorof .Lands and Surveys, Nicosia,suggesting service of the noticeon theCommitteeset upfor theAdministration of Turkish Cypriot's 10 properties. On 16.7.84 the Director of Lands and Surveys replied (Appendix D)tocounsel acting for applicant turningdown their request and indicating his adherence to the stand taken by the DistrictLands Officer of Paphos,on the matter. 15 Theapplicantfiled thepresentrecourse praying forannulment of therefusals of both theDistrictLands Officer Paphosandthe Director of Lands and Surveys set out in their letters of 16.6.84 and 16.7.84 respectively. Before proceeding further, Imust say thatIhold theviewthat 20 theprimafacie executory decision is thatof theDistrictLands Of­ ficer Paphosdated 16.6.84 andthatthedecision of theDirectorof Lands andSurveys itmerely confirmatory of theformer andcan­ nottherefore be impugned by presentproceeedings Nevertheless the presentrecourse which was filed on9.9.84impugning the de25 cision of 16.6.84, was filed intime. Thegistof thepresentrecourse is the "refusal" of therespon­ dent tocarry outthepartitionapplied for, by applicant. In thecase of ChristosPitsillides ά Another v.Andreas Nasif & Another

(1982)1C.L.R. 426, an appeal from thejudgment of 30 a first instancecivil Court,onthesubject of thedeclared inabilityrefusal of theDirectorof Lands& Surveys todecideonadispute as totheboundariesof adjo;*nng properties ontheground "of ab491 Loris J. Hadjitheodossi v. Minister of Interior

(1988)sence of any material" enabling himtodecidethedispute, our CourtofAppealheldthattheDirectorisboundaccordingtos. 58 of Cap.224,todetermine thedisputeandsettletheboundaries, and nothing shortof that willrelieve himof hisresponsibilities; the CourtofAppeal havingconsidered thesub-judice matterin 5 thatcaseheldthatitwasprimarily amatterin thedomainofprivate Law (relying on Valana v. TheRepublic,3 R.S.C.C.91) andproceeded todirecttheDirectortoexaminethematter afresh anddetermineit,asrequiredbyLaw. InReMoschatos

(1985)1 C.L.R.381,anapplication for the 10 issueofMandamusOrderdirectedagainsttherefusal oftheDistrictLandsOfficer Nicosia todealwith atransfer ofimmovable propertyfrom oneregisteredownertoanotheronthegroundthat ajudgment unders.53of Cap.6had beenregistered inrelation totheproperty sought tobetransferred, thelearnedPresidentof 15 thisCourtgrantingtheaforesaid OrderofMandamus,heldthatit wasthepublicdutyof theDistrictLandsOfficer Nicosia todeal withthematterofthetransferoftheaforesaid propertyalthough thepublicdutyhadtobeperformed inrelationtoamatterinthe domainofprivate,andnotapublicLaw. 20 TherelevantpartofthedecisioninReMoschatos(supra)atp. 385readsasfollows: "Itiswellsettledthatanorderofmandamusisgrantedinorder tcTenforce theperformance of apublicduty (see,interalia, Uftis v.ThePolice,

(1973)2C.L.R.87,InreS.&G.Colo- 25 cassides Co.Ltd.andPresidentofIndustrialDisputesCourt,

(1977)1 C.L.R.59,andHaritonos v.ChiefofPolice,

(1979)1 C.L.R. 616. InthiscaseitwasthepublicdutyoftheDistrictLands Office inNicosia todeal with the matter of the transfer of the 30 aforesaid propertyoftheapplicantinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof section8of theImmovableProperty(Transfer and Mortgage)Law, 1965(Law9/65);anditwasmandatory,and 492 3 C.L.R. Hadjitheodossi v. Minister of Interior Loris J. notmerely discretionary, todeal with thematterof the transfer of the property of the applicant underthe said section 8 (see, inter alia,In re Malikides,

(1980)1C.L.R'.472). ' 5 10 15 The aforementioned public duty hadtobe performed inrelation to a matterin thedomain of private, and notof public, Law (see, inter alia, TheRepublic "v.ΜDM. EstateDevelop­ mentsLtd.,

(1982)3 C.L.R. 642) and,therefore, itcannot be saidthattheremedy for itsenforcement is arecourse under Ar­ ticle 146of theConstitutionandnotanorderof mandamusunder Article 155.4 of the Constitution (see, inter alia, In Re Asdjian,

(1981)1C.L.R.'. 470,'and InRe Kalathas,

(1982)1 C.L.R. 835). Moreover, Iamof theview thatnotonly anorder of man­ damus can be madein thepresent instance but that,also, such order is themost effective remedy in thecircumstances (see, inter alia, theLefns case, supra)." Having considered carefully the two judgments referred to -above, Iholdtheview thatthey areconflicting ontheissuewhich is common to both: the refusal of the Director to deal with his 20 public duty. Inthecase of Pitsillides v.Nasif (supra)theCourtof Appeal held thattheallegedinability of theDirectorand hiscon­ sequential refusal todecide on thedisputes as to boundaries was within the domain of private Law whilst the learned President held that therefusal of theDirector to deal with the matter was 25 within thedomainof public Law although suchpublic duty hadto beperformed inrelation toamatterinthedomainof private Law. Inthecircumstances Iambound by thejudgment of theCourt of appeal (supra)whoseratiodecidendicovers thelegal aspect in connection with the "refusal" of the Director in the case under 30 consideration. As therefusal of theDirectorin theinstant case is in the domain of the private Law such refusal is not justiciable under Article 146; therefore the present recourse cannot be proceeded with. 493 Loris J. Hadjitheodossi v. Minister of Interior

(1988)Buteven if I were tofollow theratiodecidendi in Moschatos case (supra) -and Imust saywith respect,thatIaminfull agreement with the learned President of this Court - then, again the present recourse is notjusticiable under Article 146,for the following reason: Itisclearfromthelastparagraphof theMoschatosapplication (supra),ascited above, that "notonly an Orderof Mandamuscan be made in the present instance but that, also, such order is the most effective remedy in the circumstances." And in the case underconsideration wehavethesame"refusal" of theDirector as 10 in theMoschatos decision (supra) and I hold theview that what has been stated by the learned President in the last paragraph thereof, applies afortiori inthecase underconsideration independently of the reasoning given by the Director for his refusal to deal with thematter, in theMoschatos, decision (supra) orin the 15 caseunder consideration. Thus,if Iweretoholdthatthe "refusal" oftheDirectorin the instant case,was within thedomain of Public Law Iwould have heldaswell,that theinstantcaseisclearly within thejurisdiction of Article 155.4likeMoschatosapplication (supra). 20 Butinsuchacase,inviewof themutualexclusivity of thejurisdiction underArticle 146.1andArticle 155.4(videHouseinRamadan v. EA.C. & Another, 1R.S.C.C. 49 at pages 53 - 55) the present application filed under Article 146 of the Constitution couldnothavebeenproceededwith. 25 In the result present recourse fails and is accordingly dismissed. Let there benoorderastocosts. Recourse dismissed. No orderas to costs. 494