clr/1988/1988_3_611.pdf

(1)and

(3)and The Water (Domestic Purposes) VillagesSupplies (Pyrga)Regulations, 1973,asamended,regs. 4

(3)and5A

(4)(l)—District Officerrejectingapplicationfor division ongroundthatthelandinquestionisoutsidetheareaofthevillage ofPyrga water supply, without first referring the matter to the Water Commission—Suchconducttransgressesaforesaid provision. Streets andBuUdings—Division of land into building sites—TheStreets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96, as amended by section 2 ofLaw801 82, section 9

(4). Reasoningofanadministrative act—Defective reasoning—Doesnotleadtoannulment, if thedecision can be upheld on thebasis of a lawful reasoning therefor. 15 Theapplicants'application fordivisionof their landatPyrgavillageinto 40 building siteswasrejected by therespondent on thefollowing grounds, namely, (a)The property of yourclients issituated outside the fixed boundaries of thewatersupply of thevillage. 611 Grina Development v. Republic

(1988)(

1. b)The provisions of Law80/82are notsatisfied for the following reasons:(i)Itisa scattered typeofdevelopment which cannotbeconsidered asa uniform developmentand (
2. ii)Itdoes notcontribute in theunification or improvement of existing housing settlements and does notamount to a proper tourist or other uniform development. Hencethisrecourse.Itmustbenoted that theDistrictOfficer did notrefer the matter to the Village Water Commission, whilst, acting in accordance with Law 80/82referred thematter tothe Director of theTown and Planning Department, inaccordance with whoseadviceheacted inadopting reasoning (
3. b)hereinbefore referred to. Held,dismissing therecourse:

(1)In the lightof theprovisions ofsection 4

(1)and

(3)of theWater (Domestic Purposes) VillageSupplies Law, (Cap. 349)and of Regulations4

(2)and

(3)and 5A

(1)of the Water (Domestic Purposes) VillageSupplies (Pyrga) Regulations, 1973thecompetent authority forgranting apermit for thesupply of drinking water isthe Water Commission of the Village,notwithstanding thefact that the consent ofthe DistrictOfficer isnecessary before thepermit isissued. In thiscase the respondent did notrefer the matter to the Commission, butacted on hisown. Moreover,he failed togivedueweighttotheopinion oftheDirectorof theWater Development Department.

(2)Section 2of Law 80/82amended section 9ofCap. 96,by adding a new sub - section as sub - section 4*. The Regulations thereunder were published on 1.7.83. Acting in accordance with these provisions the respondent referred the matter tothe Directorof dieTown and Planning Department. Hethen acted inaccordance with theIatter'sadvice. In thelight of thematerial placed before theCourtreason (b)of thesub judicedecision could be reasonably adopted by the respondent.

(3)It is open to an administrative Court to uphold the validity of an administrative decision on the basis of a lawful reasoning therefor even though such reasoning isdifferent from thereasoning given by theadministration for reaching such decision and even ifthereasoning given by theadministration islegally defective. * Quoted aipp. 620-621 post. 612 3 C.L.R. Grina Development v. Republic

(4)Inthiscasethesubjudicedecision can besupported byreason(b) hereinbeforereferredto. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts c Casesreferredto:- , Papadopoulosv.TheRepublic

(1968)3 C.L.R.660; AnthoupolisLtd. v.TheRepublic

(1980)3 C.L.R.296; Constantinou v. TheRepublic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 1142; Spyrou v.The Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R.478; 10 Decisions ofthe Greek Council ofState Nos.666/1936, 1606/1950,and 1850/1950. Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to issue to applicants a division permit of their property into building sites. 15 A. Hadjioannou with St. Nathanael, for the applicants. CI. Theodoulou (Mrs.), Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. t . Cur. adv. vult. 20 25 SAVVIDES J. read the following judgment. The applicants by the present recourse seek a declaration that the decision of the respondent District Officer of Larnaca communicated to them by lettter dated 17th October, 1985 by which their application for the division of their property (Plot 105/2 Sheet/Plan XL/49 at Pyrga village) into building sites was dismissed, is null and void as it has been taken contrary to the law and/or in abuse and /or excess of power and/or misconception of fact. 613 Savvides J. Grina Development v.Republic

(1988)The applicants are a registered company dealing, amongst others, with land development. They are the owners of land underplot 105/2Sheet Plan XL/49 at thevillage of Pyrga which is outside the water supply areaofPyrgavillage. On 30.6.1982 applicants submitted an appplication for thedi- 5 vision of their aforesaid property into 64 building sites. On 21.12.1982 they informed therespondent thattheywere prepared to grant their borehole which existed on the said plot, totheVillage Water Commission of Pyrga, provided that thelatter would supply them with water for their intended building sites. On JQ 10.2.1983 the District Officer of Larnaca informed them that he was unable toproceed any further with theexamination of their application on theground of lack of sufficient and suitable water supply. He further informed them that theiroffer for the grant of their borehole to the Village Commission inexchange of supply <<of water was not accepted. On 3.3.1983 theapplicants requested the approval of their application for division of their property on the basis that there was sufficient water supply from their borehole for the needs of the proposed building sites.On27.8.1983, therespondent replied that irrespectiveof thecontentsof their letter of 3.3.1983,the application of applicants for division of their land into building sites could not be considered, as the intended building sites were outside the water supply areaof thevillageof Pyrga. The applicantsreverted againon thematter by letterdated 13th October, 1983,persisting on theircontention that there was sufficient water supply by means of their borehole andrequesting afinal reply. The respondent by letter dated 31st October, 1983,rejected, their application for division of their land into building sites for thefollowing reasons: (

1. a)The property wasoutside anydefined water supply area. (b)The proposed development was notrelated with any other development on the area, or with any community. In fact, it amounted to a kind of scattered development with the object of 614 20 25 30 3 C.L.R. Grina Development v. Republic Savvides J. profit whichcould not beconsidered as auniform development. 5 (c)Suchdevelopment could notbenefit theadjoining villageof Pyrgabecauseitdid notamount toanatural expansion ofthevillgeand itssituation was such thatitcould notorganically, become partof thevillage,even withinthenextfew years. (
2. d)Approval·of such a development would, in any event,- • create abad precedentof which other applicants,in similarcases, would try toget advantage, afact which would contribute-to the creation of scattered developments invarious partsof the island. 10 As aresult theapplicantson 13.1.1984 filed Recourse No.20/ • 84, challenging the above decision, which was withdrawn on 26.6.84 after the respondent undertook tore-examine a new application by the applicants which would raise new facts for consideration. 15 On 8.3.1985, the applicants submitted a new application for thedivision of their property into 40building sitesinstead of 64. Attached to the said application there was a study of the applicants' architect, as to the division of the land into 40 building sites in which the opinion wasexpressed that there was suitable and sufficient water supply for theneedsof theproposed building sites from the borehole of the applicants.The District Officer of Larnaca byletterdated 17th October, 1985communicated tothe applicantsconcerned his decision rejecting their application, for thefolowing reasons (as stated therein): 20 25 "(
3. a)The property of your clients is situated outside the fixedboundaries of the water supply of thevillage. (
4. b)The provisions of Law 80/82 are not satisfied for the following reasons:- 30 (
5. i)It is a scattered type of development which cannot be considered asauniform development and 615 Savvides J. Grina Development v. Repubic

(1988)(ii) Itdoes notcontribute in the unification or improvement ofexisting housing settlementsanddoesnotamount toapropertourist orother uniform development." The applicants, feeling aggrieved by the refusal to grant to them the division permit sought, filed the present recourse challenging such decision. 5 The groundsof law on which therecourse isbased arethat the subjudicedecision iscontrary totheprovisionsof theStreetsand Buildings (Regulation) Law, Cap. 96; that the respondent failed to carry out a due or any inquiry; the subjudice decision lacks 10 due reasoning; it was based on a misconception of fact; that the respondents relied on the provisions of Law 80/82, whereas the original application of theapplicants was submitted before theenactment of such law. In expounding on his grounds of law, counsel for the appli- 15 cants submitted that there wasno problem with the water supply of the building sites in question and that therespondent in refusing the application exercised his discretion in a wrong manner. According to the contents of the relevant files, counsel added, there wasnoobjection on thepart of the WaterDevelopment De- 20 partment for the supply of water to the intended building sites from the water supply of Pyrga village. Furthermore, the respondent failed to carry out an inquiry whether the waterof the borehole of the applicants was fit, asalleged by them, for the water supply of the said building sites.In 25 dealing with the otherreasons given bythe respondent for refusing the application, counsel argued that this is arepetition of the samereasons given in theoriginal refusal of the application. Furthermore, counsel argued, therespondent failed toconsider and givedue weight tothe plans submitted by theapplicants and 30 the written opinion expressed bytheirarchitect and town planner and relied on the opinion of the Town Planning Department which did not carry out a proper inquiry before expressing such 616 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Grina Development v. Republic Savvides J. opinion. The suggested development, counsel submitted, is not contrary totheprovisions of Law 80/82,and had the respondent considered the proposals submitted by the applicants, he would have reached a different decision. It was further suggested by counselfor applicants that therefusal wasinstigated by irrelevant motives such as the expenditure which the Village Authorities would have incurred in asphalting theroad leading from thevillage tothe said building sitesdisregarding altogether the benefit which haveaccrued tothevillage by such development. As mentioned earlier, several reasons were given by the respondent for refusing.the applicants'application. Ishall deal first with thereason that theproperty of theapplicants is situated outsidethefixedboundaries oftheWater Supplyof thevillage. Under section 4

(1)of the Water (Domestic Purposes) Village SuppliesLaw, Cap.349,it isprovided that"In every village to which this Law is made to apply the Village Commissison, with the mukhtar thereof as chairman, shall be constituted as a Village Water Commission for the: purposesof thisLaw; 20 and under sub-section

(3)of section*4,itisfurther provided that"Themukhtaraschairman shalldulycarryout thedecisions of theVillageWaterCommission." ·..··. 25 30 TheWater Commission of Pyrga village,exercising their powers undertheLaw issued Bye-Laws, modelled on thelinesof the Water (Domestic Purposes) Village Supplies (Elea) Bye-Laws, 1950, which were adopted with certain changes as part of the bye-laws concerning the water supply of Pyrga. These are cited astheWater(DomesticPurposes) VillageSupplies (Pyrga) Regulations, 1973published in Supplement No.Ill of theofficial Gazetteof 1973atp.409,under Notification 109/73. These Regulationswereamended by Notification Nos233/77, 124/84 and11/ 617 Savvides J. Grina Development v. Republic

(1988)85published inSupplementNo.Ill of theofficial Gazetteofthe respective years. Regulation 4

(1)provides asfollows:"No water from thewater supply shall be installed inany dwelling houseor premises inthevillagewithout thewritten permission of theWater Commissionfirstobtained." Undersub-paragraph

(2)itis provided as folows:"Suchpermission shall besubject tosuch termsand condi­ tions astheWater Commissionmaythinkfit to impose." Undersub-paragrah

(3)itisfurtherprovidedthat "Nopermission shall begrantedbytheWater Commissionun­ derthisbye-law withoutthe consentof theDistrict Officer." Reg. 5A

(1)which was introducedby Not11/85 provides as follows: "5A

(1)Αν οι ανάγκεςτουχωρίου σεπόσιμονερότο επιτρέπουν, ηΕπιτροπή Υδατοπρομήθειαςμπορεί κατά τηνκρίσητηςκαιέπειτα απότηνέγκρισητουΕπαρχου να παραχωρεί το δικαίωμα προμήθειας πόσιμουνερού από την υδατοπρομήθεια του Χωριού για να χρησιμοποιηθεί έξω απότηνπεριοχήΥδατοπρομήθειας ως πηγήΥδατοπρομήθειας γιασκοπούςαξιοποίησης γηςή διαχωρισμού γης σε οικόπεδα ήγιανα μεταφερθεί σε ανεγειρόμενη οι­ κοδομή". And theEnglish translation:("5A

(1)Iftheneedsof thevillageindrinking waterper­ mitit,theWater Commissionmayatitsdiscretionandafterthe approval of the District Officer grant the right of supply of drinking water from the Water supply of thevillage for use 618 3 C.L.R. Grina Development v. Republic Savvides J. outsidethewater supply area as a source of water supply for the purpose of development of land or division of landinto building sites ortobeconveyed toabuilding under construc­ tion"). 5 ItisclearfromtheaboveRegulationthat thecompetent author­ ity ingranting apermitis the Water Commission of theVillage, notwithstandingthefact thattheconsentof theDistrictOfficer is necessary before thepermitis issued. Inthepresentcasethough theDistrictOfficer inconsidering applicants'application for the 1ο division of theirland asked for theopinionof theDirector ofthe WaterDevelopmentDepanmentonthematter, heneverplaced the application of the applicants before the appropriate authority which was theWater Commisssion of Pyrga villageandhe dealt with thematterinhis personal capacity. Itherefore find that the ,c DistrictOfficer inrefusing applicants application onthisground hasfailed toactinaccordancewith theprovisions of Regulation 5.Furthermore,as it appears from the relevant file which is be­ fore metheDistrictOfficer failed togivedueweighttothe opin­ ionexpressed by the Director of theWater Development Depart­ mentwhich appearsunderNote43dated 12thSeptember,1985in Exhibit 1,andfailed tosubmit such opiniontotheWaterCom­ mission of Pyrga. Itreads as follows: 2 ^ " Σημείωμα

(42)πιο πάνω. Ηνέα αίτηση αφορά τον διαχωρισμό 40 οικοπέδων εκτός της ζώνης υδρεύσεως Πύργων. Ηκοινότητα Πύργων υδροδοτείται σήμεραικανοποιη­ τικά από τον Αγωγό Λευκωσίας καιυπάρχει σχέδιοέτοι­ μοπουναπροβλέπεται ναυλοποιηθή μέσα στο 1986 για ενίσχυσητηςυδατοπρομήθειαςτουΧωριού μεπολύδυνα­ μικήγεώτρηση στηνπεριοχήτου Χωριού. Εφόσονυπάρχουνπεριθώριαγιαυδροδότησητωνπρο­ τεινομένων οικοπέδωναπότηνκοινοτικήνυδατοπρομήθειαεισηγούμαιόπωςεφαρμοσθείονέοςπερί Υδατοπρομήθειας Χωρίων (Δι' Οικιακούς σκοπούς) ΝόμοςΚεφ. 619 Savvides J. Grina Development v. Republic

(1988)349. Κανονισμοί δυνάμειτουάρθρου 30

(1).Αν ήθελε προ­ ωθηθείηαίτησηνα μουσταλεί οφακελλος μετάτηνέγκρι­ σητουτελικούδιαχωρισμούγιαυποδείξειςτωνδιασωλη­ νώσεων." In thelightof theabovenoteitappears thattheinquiry carried 5 out by theDistrict Officer was nottheproper onein thecircum­ stances of thecase. Having dealt with theabove, Ishall next proceed to consider theotherreasons given by therespondent for refusing applicants' application. Such reasons are based on the provisions of the 10 Streets andBuildings Regulation (Amendment) Law, 1982 (Law 80/82)andinparticular section 2whereby section 9of theStreets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap.96 was amended by thead­ ditionof anew sub-section as sub-section

(4).Sub-section

(4)(a) provides thatnopermit shall begranted for thelayout ordivision j ^ of land into separate sites which is outside a water supply area unless:"... ηαρμοδία αρχή,αφούλάβη τηνσυμβουλήν τουΔι­ ευθυντού του Τμήματος Πολεοδομίας και Οικήσεως (εν τοις εφεξής εν τω παρόντι εδαφίωκαλουμένου 'ρηθεις 20 Διευθυντής'), ικανοποιήταιπλήρωςότι τούτοθασυμβάλη εις τηνενοποίησινήτηνβελτίωσιν υφισταμένωνοικισμών ήτηνσυμπλήρωσιν τουοδικούδικτύουεντόςτωνυπόανάπτυξιν περιοχών ήεις ενδεδειγμένην τουριστικήνή άλλην ενιαίαν ανάπτυξιν. „ Διάτουσκοπούςεκπληρώσεωςτηςωςπροείρηταιπροϋ­ ποθέσεως το Υπουργικόν Συμβούλιον διά διατάγματος αυτού, δημοσιευομένου εις την επίσημον Εφημερίδατης Δημοκρατίας,θαεκδίδηταςαναγκαίας ήεπιθυμητάς οδη­ γίαςκαιθααναθεωρήταύτας οσάκιςαιπεριστάσεις μετά- ™ βάλλωνται: Νοείται ότι η αρμοδίααρχή, μετά σύμφωνον γνώμην του ρηθέντοςΔιευθυντού, δύναται εάνούτω επιβάλλητο 620 3 C.L.R. Grina Development v. Republic Savvides J. δημόσιον συμφέρον,τηεγκρίσει τουΥπουργικού Συμβου­ λίου, να μηναπαιτή εφαρμογήν της ανωτέρω προϋποθέσε­ ως, ως ήθελε κρίνει σκόπιμον, λογιζομένων των ειδικών περιστάσεων εκάστηςπεριπτώσεως." 5 10 15 20 25 30 And theEnglish translation: (".... theappropriate authority after receiving theadvice of theDirectorof the Departmentof Town Planning and Housing (hereinafter in this sub-section referred to as 'the said Direc­ tor'),is completely satisfied thatthis will contribute totheunification or theimprovement of existing housing settlements or thecompletion of theroad network within theareas underde­ velopment ortoan approved tourist or other uniform develop­ ment. ' For thepurposes of fulfillingthe aforesaid prerequisite the •Councilof Ministers by order published in theofficial Gazette of the Republic, shall issue the necessary or desirable direc­ tions and shall revise same whenever the circumstances change: • , Provided that the appropriate authority, on theconcurrent opinion of the said Director, may not,if this is necessary in the public interest, with the consent of the Council of Ministers, demand thefulfilment of theabove prerequisite, as it may con­ sider expendient, having regard tothespecial circumstances of each case.") The Council of Ministers in theexercise of thepowers vested in it by sub-section 4 issued an order dated 1st July, 1983 pub­ lished in Supplement No.Ill Part Iof theofficial Gazetteof the Republic, dated the 8th July, 1983, embodying directions neces­ sary for the fulfilment of the prerequisites of sub-section

(4). Suchdirections were as follows:- (D.-.v .. 621 Savvides J. Grina Development v. Republic

(2)Ειδικάπροκειμένου για ενιαία ανάπτυξη,επιπρό­ σθετα απότις πιοπάνωγενικές οδηγίες θαιαχνονν και οι ακόλουθες (α) ως ενιαία ανάπτυξηθεωρείται η οικιστική ενιαία ανάπτυξη, ητουριστική ενιαίαανάπτυξηκαιηανάπτυξη 5 πολλαπλών ψυχαγωγικών διευκολύνσεων, εφόσο είναι ψηλήςτεχνικήςκαιαισθητικής στάθμηςκαιδημιουργείται στηνκατάλληλη τοποθεσία. (β) η ενιαία ανάπτυξηθαπρέπει να συνοδεύεταιαπό σχέδιο γενικής διατάξεως, απόαρχιτεκτονικά σχέδιακαι οτιδήποτε άλλο αναγκαίογια να αποδειχτεί η πρόθεση τωναιτητώνγιαεκτέλεση τουέργουστοσύνολοτου. ίο (γ) Ειδικότεραη ενιαίαοικιστική ανάπτυξηθα πρέπει νασυμβάλλει στην ενοποίησηκαιβελτίωση τωνυφισταμέ­ νων οικιστικών είτε ναδημιουργείανεξάρτητουςκαιαυ- 15 τοτελείς οικισμούς πουναπεριλαμβάνουν,εκτός απόοικι­ στικές μονάδες,και άλλες κοινωφελείς χρήσεις, ανάλογα μετηνπερίπτωση, όπωςχώρους πρασίνου,γήπεδα αθλο­ παιδιών καιάλλες αθλητικέςδιευκολύνσεις, εκπαιδευτικά ιδρύματα,καιναεξυπηρετείκοινωφελήήάλλο μηκερδο- 20 σκοπικό σκοπό". And theEnglish translation: ("

(2)Especially,in thecaseof auniform development, inaddi­ tiontotheabovegeneral directions thefollowing willapply: (a)As auniform development is considered tobe the housing uniform development, the tourist uniform development andthe development of multientertainmentfacilities,provided theyareof a high technical andaesthetic level andis created in thesuitable locality; 622 30 3 C.L.R. Grina Development v. Republic Savvides J. (b)theuniform development should beaccompanied byaplan of general arrangement, by architectural plans and anything else required to prove the intention of the applicants to execute the workinitstotality; 5 IQ 15 2Q 2<r ™ (c)more specifically theuniform housingdevelopment should eithercontribute tothe unification and improvement of theexisting housing settlements orcreate independent and self-contained settlements which will comprise, besides housing units, other usesfor thepublic interest, according tothecase,such as spaces of green,athletic grounds and other athleticfacilities, educational institutions, and serve the public or any other non profit making purpose.") ' The District Officer in the present case acting in compliance with the provisions of sub-section

(4), paragraph (a), submitted applicants' application totheDirector of theTown Planning and Housing Department for his observations. The Director, having considered theapplication, came totheconclusion that theapplication should not be granted for the reasons, inter alia, that the provisions of Law 80/82 were not complied with, in that (i) the development wasascattered one'and could not beconsidered asa uniform development and (ii)could notcontribute tothe unification or improvement of existing housing settlements nor did it amount toaproper tourist orotheruniform development. In the light of the material before me, as explained above, I find that in thecircumstances of thecase it wasreasonably open to the District Officer to reject applicants' application for these reasons. "The question, however, which remains to be considered is whether once one of thereasons given by therespondent for refusing theapplication and in particular the first reason was found tobewrong,thedecision can beupheld on thebasisof other lawful reasoning. According to Kyriacopoulos on Greek Administrative Law 623 Savvides J. Grina Development v. Republic

(1988)vol. Β at p. 337 wrong reasoning of a decision does not lead to its annulmentif thedecision can have otherlegal support.Tothe same effect are also theDecisionsof the Greek Councilof State 666/1936, 1606/1950 and 1850/1950. This principle has also been adopted in a numberof cases of our Supreme Court. Useful 5 reference may be madeto:Papadopoulosv. TheRepublic

(1968)3 C.L.R. 660, 674; Anthoupolis Ltd. v. The Republic

(1980)3 C.L.R. 296, 302 - 303; Constantinou v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 1142, 1148; Spyrou v. The Republic

(1973)3 C.L.R. 478 where it was held (atp.484) that:,( "It is, however, open toan administrativejudge - and I am dealing with these cases insuch acapacity -touphold theva­ lidity of an administrative decision on thebasis of alawful rea­ soning therefor even though such reasoning is different from thereasoning given by theadministrationfor reaching such de- , cision and even if thereasoning given by theadministration is legally defective (see, inter alia, the decisions of theGreek Council of State in Cases 48/1968, 132/1969, 2134/1969 and 2238/1970)". In the circumstances of the present case I have come to the ~ conclusion thatthedecision of therespondentcan have legal sup­ port as explained above and itcan be upheld on thebasis of law­ ful reasoning notwithstanding thefact thatoneof thereasons giv­ en was wrong. Therecourse therefore fails and is hereby dismissed butin the circumstances Imake noorderfor costs. 2 Recoursedismissed. Noorder as to costs. 624