clr/1988/1988_3_495.pdf

(1988)Legitimateinterest—Acceptanceofanadministrativeact—Compulsoryaquisition—Initiation ofproceedingsfor assessing compensation, whilst re­ coursefor annulmentimpugning the validityoftherelevantdecisionstill pending—Unconditionalappearancebyapplicantsto therecourseinsuch compensationproceedings—In thecircumstancesdoes notamount toan 5 unreservedacceptanceofthesubjudiceact. Legitimateinterest—Itshouldexistatthe timeofthefilingoftherecourseand shouldcontinuetoexistupto thedeterminationofthecase. Compulsoryacquisition—Competence—WhetheraVillage Health Commis­ sioncan compulsorityacquire with thesanction oftheCouncilofMinis- 10 ters) immovablepropertyfor creatingastadium—In thelightofsections 7 (x6) and7(χστ)of Cap. 259, asamended byLaws81/63 and 5/83 the questionisdeterminedintheaffirmative. "Thefacts ofthiscaseappearsufficiently intheJudgmentoftheCourt. Recoursedismissed.15 Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: CyprusTransportCo. Ltd. andAnother (No. 1) v. TheRepublic and Oi/ierj

(1969)3C.L.R.501; Chrysochou Bros.v.CYTA

(1966)3C.L.R.482;, 20 Christodoulou v. TheRepublic, 1R.S.C.C.1; Constantinidou andOthersv.TheRepublic

(1974)3C.L.R.416; Republic v.K.M.C. Motors Ltd.

(1986)3C.L.R.1899; MeletisAndOthersv. CyprusPortsAuthority

(1986)3C.L.R. 418; Kritiotisv. MunicipalityofPaphosandOthers

(1986)3C.L.R.322. 496 25 3 C.L.R. Lambidonitis v. The Republic RecoursesRecourse against thedecision of therespondents whereby ap­ plicants'property situated atAskasvillagedwas compulsorily ac­ quired. 5 E.Efstathiou,for applicants. CI. Theodoulou (Mrs), Senior Counsel of the Republic with M.Eliades, for therespondents. Cur. adv.vult. LORISJ.read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicants impugn 10 by means of the present recourse, the.Order of acquisition published in the Of$cial Gazette of the Republic on 5.7.85, whereby the imrnovaole property covered by plots 142 (whole) 244 (part

1. of)252 (part
2. of)and 256 (part oij of sheet/plan ΧΧΧΫΙΠ/52 situated at Askasvillage, Nicosia District, belong15 ing toall 3applicants inundivided srares by virtue of inheritance, was compulsorily acquired by theVillage Health Commission of Askas village,for the purpose of creating acommunal stadiumat Askasvillage. Thefacts of thepresent case may be thus summarised: 20 TheVillageHealthCommission of Askasvillage,NicosiaDis­ trict,published in theOfficial Gazetteof theRepublic under No. 1913 dated 16.12.83 (vide Appendix A attachedtothewritten ad­ dress of Respondents 1 & 3) a notice of acquisition of certain properties situated atAskasvillage,amongst which were the fol25 lowingproperties, which were atthetimeregistered in thename of thedeceased Sawas M.Lambidonitis andbelonged toall 3 ap­ plicants in undivided shares by virtue of inheritance, from the aforesaid deceased registered owner: 497 Loris J. Lambidonitis v. The Republic

(1988)Plot 242 (whole) andplots 244,252 and 256partly,of Sheet/ Plan XXXVIII/52. The said acquisition was to be effected for the purpose of creatingacommunal stadiumatAskasvillage. On5.7.85 an acquisition Order waspublished in the Official GazetteoftheRepublicunderNo.'2060(videAppendixB). 5 SuchOrderof acquisition,referred totheearlierNoticeofacquisition,for thedescription of thepropertiesconcerned and they havetoberead together sothatonemay understand the contents of thesaidOrder. ^ IntheNoticeof acquisition thepropertiesof theapplicants are described by means of reference to surveyj)Ians only; and the namesof theowners thereof arenotmentioned atall ineither the NoticeofAcquisitionortheOrderof Acquisition. Itmayaswell,beaddedhere,thattherelevantOrderofAcquisitionwasmade bythe VillageHealth Commission ofAskasvillage, after obtaining the sanction of the Council of Ministers on 14.6.85, (vide Appendix "D")pursuant to the provisions of s. 6

(3)(b)of Law 15/62.(The Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law, 1962.) Thepresent recourseisdirected againsttheRepublicthrough: 1.Ministryof Interior 2.TheVillageHealth CommissionofAskasvillage 3.TheDistrict Officer NicosiaLearnedcounselfor theRepublicraisedtwopreliminaryobjec- 25 tionson behalfofRespondents 1 and

1. 498 15 20 3C.L.R. Lambidonitis v.The Republic Loris J. The first objection is to the effect that Respondents 1and 3 should notbemade parties totheseproceedings. The second objection asIwas abletocomprehend it,istothe effect thatalthough theapplicants hadanexisting legitimateinter5 estatthetimeofthefiling of thepresentrecourse,ceased tohave such an interest before the completion of the hearing of the presentrecoursebyimpliedly accepting unreservedly theadministrativeactinquestion underalleged circumstances,which will be explained lateroninthepresentjudgment whendealingwith this 10 preliminary objection. Ishallproceed forthwith toexamine theabovementioned preliminary objections before goingintothemerits ofthiscase. With regard to the First objection thedecision of Triantafyllides J. as he then was,in CyprusTransport Co.Ltd. &Another 15 (No. I) v.Republic of Cyprus through: 1.The Minister ofCommunications and Works
2. The Permits Authority

(1969)3 C.L.R. 501 amply covers the issue in the instant case. The learned President stated interalia thefollowing atp.502ofthereport. 20 25 "Counsel for Respondent 1has submitted that Respondent 1should nothavebeenmadeaparty totheseproceedings. Ascorrectly pointed out byhim,andas stated,also,inAdministrative Law by Berthelemy (3rd ed. of 1993, translated by Stassinopoulos p. 395) a recourse such asthepresent one is ineffect, made against the actordecision which isitssubject-matter, and theorganresponsible therefor isheardonlyin relation tothevalidity of such actordecision " Intheinstantcasetherecourseisdirected substantially against thepublication of theOrderfor acquisition whichemanates from 499 LorisJ. Lambidonitis v. The Republic

(1988)theVillageHealth CommissionofAskasvillage;inotherwords RespondnetNo;2isresponsibletherefor. RespondentNo. 1 and RespondentNo.3havenothingtodowiththesubjudiceact It istruethatpursuant totheprovisionsof s.6

(3)(b)ofLaw 15/62RespondentNo.2hastoobtainthesanctionoftheCouncil of Ministers before publishing the Orderof Acquisition; inany eventRespondent No. 1 isadifferent organfrom the"Councilof Ministers"whowerenotjoinedinthepresentproceedings. (InthisconnectionIfeel thatit shouldbestatedatthisstage, bywayofparenthesis,thatthesub-judiceordercomplainedofis acompositeadministrativeactinthatithasbeenmadebyrespondentNo.2,theacquiringauthority,butithasbeensanctionedby the Council of Ministers under section 6

(3)(b)of Law 15/62. (ChrysochouBros. v.CYTA andtheRepublicthroughtheCouncilofMinisters

(1966)3 C.L.R.482). Intheinstantcase,theCouncilofMinisterswasnotjoined»as itoughtto.Thisissuewasneverraisedbeforemebyanysidein theseproceedings.I havecarefully considered thisissuein the light of the decision in Christodoulou and the Republic, 1 R.S.C.C.l and I have come to the conclusion that I should refrainfromactingexpropriomotubyaddingtheCouncilofMinistersinthetitleof thepresent proceedings atthislate stage,as suchacoursemightprejudicerespondentNo. 2). AsregardsRespondent No.3,theDistrict Officer, hasnolocusstandiatallinthepresentproceedings.Themerementioning inthenoticeof acquisition,thatanyobjections directed against theintendedacquisition shouldbeaddressedthroughtheDistrict Officer ofNicosia,doesnotinmyviewrenderthelatterresponsiblefortheeventualOrderofacquisiton. Ireallycannot seehow,theMinistryof Interior(Respondent No. 1)andtheDistrict Officer Nicosia (Respondent No.3),are involved in thismatter, I woldtheview that Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3>*ereunnecessarilyjoined in thepresent 500 3 C.L.R. Lambidonitis v. The Republic Loris J. recourse.I order, therefore, that theMinistry of Interior and the District Officer of Nicosia should bestruckout from thedescriptionoftheRespondentinthetitleofthepresentproceedings. IholdtheviewthatinspiteofthefactthatRespondents 1 and 3 5 weresuccessful intheirpreliminary objection IshouldnotandIdo notmakeanyorderastocosts,asinmyviewtheirjoiningbyapplicants,wasduetoabona fide effort tobring all necessary parties,accordingtotheirview,before the Court Comingnowtothesecond objection: 10 It is a fact that the 2nd preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel appearing forex-respondents 1 and 3whoelaborated on this issue in her written address; in this connection it mustbestatedthatcounselforrespondentNo.2adopted thestand taken bycounsel for ex-respondents. Independently of the above 15 itiswellsettledthatanAdministrativeCourtcan inquireintothe existenceof anexisting legitimateinterest actingexpropriomotu aslitigationunderArticle 146isamatterofpublicLaw (Cpnstantinidou & Others, v. the Republic

(1974)3 C.L.R. 416 at p. 418 -Republic v.K.M.C. Motors Ltd

(1986)3 C.L.R. 1899.) 20 The present recourse impugning the acquisition Order was filed on 18.9.1985.It iscommon ground that the applicants had an existing legitimate interest at the time of the filing of therecourse.The submission basedontheprinciplethat "thelegitimate interest mustexist atthetimeof thefilingof therecourse andup 25 to the determination of thecase '\Meletis and Others v. Cyprus Ports Authorities

(1986)3 C.L.R; 418 at p. 433 - Kritiotis v. Municipality ofPaphos and Others

(1986)3C.L.R. 322),relies onthefollowing facts: .. 1. On 4.2.86 the Acquiring Authority filed with the District 30 Court ofNicosia Reference underNo. 13/86for thefixingof the compensationpayablefor thepropertiescompulsorily acquired. 501 Loris J. Lambidonitis v. The Republic

(1988)2.Theapplicantsinthepresentrecoursefiledan unconditional appearance intheaforesaidreferenceon20.2.

1. 3.Thus,it is maintained,theprocedurefor thefixingof the compensation inrespect of the acquisition commencedwithout anyreservation by the applicants. 4.Itis submitted matthesaidconductottheapplicantstanta- 5 mountstoanimpliedvoluntary andunreserved acceptance ofthe administrative act in question,prior tothedeterminationof the presentcase,andas aconsequencethereof- itis alleged- the ap­ plicantsweredeprived of theirlegitimateinterestentitlingthem to pursuetheirpresentrecourseanyfurther. 10 Having given tothemattermy bestconsideration,Iholdthe viewthattheconductof theapplicantscannotbeconsidered as implying thattheyhave acceptedunreservedly thesubjudicead­ ministrative act.Onthecontrary it is abundantlyclear thateven before filing the presentrecoursethey have lodged objections 15 against thenoticeof acquisition; theyfiledwithin thetimelimit envisaged by Article 146 thepresent recourse (it wasfiledon 18.9.85; they have filed an appearance in Reference 13/86, (which was filed by the Acquiring Authority) on 20.2.86 and theycontinuedpursuing thepresentrecoursefilingtheirwritten 20 address on 17.10.86,thatis after thefilingof theirappearance in Reference 13/
2. Inthe circumstaces the2ndpreliminary objection fails andis accordingly dismissed. I shall now proceed to examine the merits of the recourse 25 against RespondentNo.2only,notably theVillageHealth Com­ mission ofAskasvillage. The complaints of the applicants are summed up by their learned Counsel in his written address underthreeheads as fol­ lows: (A)TheVillageHealthCommissionof Askas,itwas submit­ ted,couldnot actasanAcquiring Authority inviewof theprovi­ sionsofs.2ofLaw 15/62whichdefines exclusivelyand restric502 3υ 3 C.L.R. Lambidonitis v.The Republic Loris J. lively theorgans andauthorities which can actin thatcapacity;a Village Health Commission - it was maintained -does,not fall within theorgans or authoritiesenvisaged by s. 2of Law 15/
3. (B) Inthealternative,even if we were toaccept thata Village 5 Health Commission could act as acquiring authority,it was sub­ mittedthatithadnocompetenceinthematterasthepropertysub­ ject -matterof theacquisition was destined for thecreationof a communal stadium,amattercompletely outside theambitof the competenceof aVillage Health Commission. 10 (C)Learned counsel for applicants further submitted, thatby the sub-judice decision theprinciples of fair administration have beenviolated inthatrespondentNo. 2failed toexamine thealter­ native possibility of achieving theobject of its intended acquisi­ tion, either by purchasing other suitable property from willing 15 vendors, or by acquiring compulsorily other suitable immovable property,theacquisition of which would have entailed a depriva­ tionless onerous thanthedeprivation entailed by theacquisition of thepropertiesof theapplicants: I shall deal with complaintsunder(A) and(B)together,inor20 dertoavoidrepetitions: The "Acquiring authority" as defined in theinterpretationsec­ tionof theCompulsory Acquisition of PropertyLaw, 1962 s. 2 of Law 15/62 includes interalia: s.2(l)(d): "A public corporation on which a right to acquire 25 propertycompulsorily isconferred by Law;" Thepowers andduties of aVillageHealthCommission setout in section 7

(1)of Cap. 259 wereextended by theadditionof new paragraphs by virtue of theprovisions of s. 3 of Law 81/63. 30 One of the new paragraphs so added, notably para (Κδ) reads: "ναπροβαίνη εις την αναγκαστικήν απαλλοτρίωσιν ιδιοκτησίας δι'οιονδήποτετωνσκοπώναυτής, συμφωνίας π ρ ο ς τ α ς δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ι ς τ ο υ π ε ρ ί Αναγκαστικής ΑπαλλοτριώσεωςΝόμουτου 1962." 503 LorisJ. Lambidonitis v.TheRepublic

(1988)(EnglishTranslation: "toproceedwith thecompulsory acquisitionof property for anyoneofitsobjects, inaccordancewith theprovisions ofthe CompulsoryAcquisition Law of 1962"). Section7

(1)of Cap.259was further amendedby theaddition 5 of threenew paragraphs by virtue of theprovisions of s. 2 of Law 5/83. One of the new paragraphs so added under "κστ" reads; "(κστ)ναιορυηκαιελέγχηκολυμβητήρια,χώρουςκατασκηνώσεωςκαιχώρουςαθλοπαιδιών." 10 (English Translation: "Toestablish andcontrolswimming pools,campingplaces andplacesfor sports"). Itis abundantly clearfromtheabovethattheVillage Health Commission of Askas was authorised by the relevant law, as 15 amended, toactasanAcquiring Authority andhadcompetence to acquirecompulsorily immovable property for thepurposeof the creationof acommunalstadium,which isobviouslyaplacedes­ tined for sports as envisaged by section 2 of Law 5/83, para. "κστ". . 20 With regard tocomplaintunder(C)above,itisclearfromthe materialbefore meandinparticularfrom paragraphs 1 to7inclu­ sive,oftheaffidavit sworn bytheChairmanoftheVillageHealth CommissionofAskasvillagedated24.6.87, aswellasfromEx­ hibits 1,2 and3 appended thereto, thatRespondentNo. 2 has 125 before resorting tothecompulsory acquisitionof the immovable property of theapplicants,which is uncultivated stony land,ex­ hausted, albeitunsuccessfully,everyalternativepossibility witha viewtoachieving its object. 504 3 C.L.R. Lambidonitis v.The Republic Loris J. Having carefully gonethrough the material before meIhold theview that thediscretion of theAcquiring Authority wasproperlyexercisedinthelightofallrelevantmatters takenintoconsideration andafter adueinquiryintothematter.FurtherIamofthe 5 view that the relevant sanction of the Council of Ministers was validlygiven.InthecircumstancesthisCouncannotinterfereand substituteitsowndiscretion tothatof the Respondent. In the result present recourse fails in its entirety and it isaccordingly dismissed. 10 Let therebenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. 505