(1988)1988April28 (A.LOEOU,P.,MALACHTOS,SAVVIDES,POOS&KOURRIS.JJ.) PANTELITSACHRISTOPHIDOU, Appellant-Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYRPUS,THROUGH THECOUNCILOFMINISTERS, Respondents. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealNo.598). CompulsoryAcquisition—Purposeof—Preservationorimprovementofancient monumentsorantiquitiesorthedevelopmentofthesurroundingplaces— Buildingalreadydeclaredan "ancientmonument" undertheAntiquities Law,Cap. 31—Suchstatementofpurposeofacquisitionquiteclearinthe circumstances. '^ CompulsoryAcquisition—Ofbuilding, which istheonlyaccommodation of itsownerandherfamily—Notagroundfor annullingtheacquisition. CompulsoryAcquisition—Purposeof—Buildingalreadydeclaredan "ancient monument"—Recourse challenging theacquisition, butnottheprevious order—The nature ofthebuilding asan "ancient monument" cannot be 10 challenged. CompulsoryAcquisition—Necessityof,for thepurposestatedin thenotice—Judicialcontrol—Principlesapplicable. The appellant was originally 1/3 owner of a building known as the "Innof Kaliana".Followingasubdivisionamongtheco-owners,theap- 15 pellantwasallottedaspecific partofthebuilding,for whichaseparatetitledeedwasissued The wholebuilding wasdeclared an "ancient monument" andwasemplacedinthesecondscheduletotheAntiquitiesLaw,Cap.31.Theappellantdidnotchallengetherelevantorder. 862 20 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Christophidou v. Republic Aboutayearlater,therewaspublished anoticeof acquisition of the whole building, followed, notwithstanding appellant's objection, which .wasdismissed,byanorderfortheacquisitionof thewholebuilding.The purposeofpublicbenefit wasdescribed asarchaeological excavationsor thepreservationorimprovementofancientmonumentsorantiquitiesorthe developmentofthesurroundingplaces.Thereasonsforwhichthebuilding wasrequiredweredescribedasthepreservationorimprovementofancient monumentsorantiquitiesinthevillageofKaliana. Theappellantchallenged theorderofacquisition byarecoursetothis Court,whichwaseventuallydismissed. Hencethisappeal. Thegroundsofappealmaybedescribedasfollows: 15 20 (a) The trial Court wrongly treated appellant's property as "ancient monument"or"antiquity".Counselargued thatthesetermsinthecontext oftheCompulsory Acquisition ofPropertyLaw 15/62havenotthesame meaningas inCap.31,butthemeaningattachedtothem intheConstitutionandtheImmovableProperty(Tenure,RegistrationandValuation)Law, Cap.224.Hefurther arguedthatthepowertodeclareabuildingas"ancient monument"isunconstitutional. (b)Thetrial Courtfailed totake intoaccountthefact thatappellant's housewastheonlyaccommodation forherselfandherfamily. (c)Thepurposeof theacquisition inthe saidnotice wasvery vague and general andnotspecifically explaining thepurposefor which itwas acquired. 25 (d)Thefinding of thetrialCourtaboutthecompleteindifference and thelackof interest for therestoration of theinn bytheowners of itand thefruitless attemptsofthatDepartmenttocometoanarrangement, with all the owners'for the restorarion of the inn was not supported byevidence. 30 Infact, ina letterby theDirector of Antiquities it ismentioned that "someoftheowners"(theappellantwasnotamongthem)abandonedtheir property ina ruinouscondition and thatthe Director objected torepairs carriedoutbyappellant,astheyweremadeforthepurposeofconverting partoftheInntodwellinghouse. Q£Q Christophidou v. Republic
(1988)Held,dismissing theappeal,Pikis andKourrisJJ.dissenting:
(1)When theproperty was compulsorily acquired itwas already a de clared ancientmonument.All argumentsputforward inthecontextofthe first groundof appealmighthavebeenmaterialinarecourse challenging theorderunderCap.31. .5
(2)Thesecondgrounddoesnotamounttoagroundfor setting asidean acquisitionorder.
(3)(a)Whether itis necessary thatproperly is tobeacquired for a pur pose tothebenefit of thepublic,isamattertobedecidedby the Govern mentand intheabsence ofanyvalidreason tothecontrary thedecision of 10 theGovernmentso todocannotbeinterfered withby this Court. (b)Thepurposes of theacquisition areclearly stated in thenoticeof acquisition. Theyarefor thepublic interestandspecifically for the main tenanceanduseful valorization (αξιοποίησις)ofancientmonuments.The useful valorization of such monument cantake severalforms andvarious 15 ideashavebeenexpressedby theAntiquities Department. ThisCourtdoesnotagreethatallsuchpurposesareoutsidethescopeof useful valorization (αξιοποίησις)oftheproperty, toserveitspurposeasan ancient monumentinitscharacteras an "Inn",andrejects the submission madeby counsel for theappellantthattheproperty was acquired toserve 20 extraneousmotives andnotforpurposesof publicinterest.
(4)Thetrial Judge should not,intheabsence of material before him, haverelied onthefact thatappellantrefused toco-operalewiththeDepart mentof Antiquities. Inthelight,however,of thematerial inthe aforesaid letterof theDirectorof theDepartmentof Antiquities, thediscretion was 25 exercised inaway thatwas reasonably opentotheacquiringauthority. Appealdismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: LordosLtd. andOthers v.TheRepublic
(1974)3C.L.R.447. 864 3Q 3 C.L.R. Appeal. Christophidou v. Republic Appeal against thejudgment of aJudgeof theSupreme Court of Cyprus (Demetriades, J)given onthe23rd April, 1986 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 437/79)* whereby appellant's re5 course against thecompulsory acquisition of herpropeny situated atKalianavillagewas dismissed. A.S.AngelidesforN.Papaefstathiou, for theappellant. A. Vassiliades, for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. 10| A.LOIZOU,P.:Thefirst Judgmentof theCourtwillbedeli vered by his HonourSawides, J. ΣΑΒΒΙΔΗΣ,Δ:Toκείμενοτηςαπόφασης θαείναιέτοιμο σελίγες μέρες.Τοπρωτόδικο Δικαστήριοορθώς απεφάσισε και απέρριψετηνπροσφυγήτης εφεσειούσης. Υπό τιςπερι15 στάσειςτηςυποθέσεωςδενδίδομεέξοδαστηνέφεσηαυτή. Α. LOIZOU,P.:Iagree with thejudgment delivered by Jus ticeSawides andIhavenothingtoadd. N1ALACHTOS, J.: Ialso agree with thejudgment just deli vered by Mr. Justice Sawides that the' appeal should be dis20 missed with noorderas tocosts. ΠΙΚΗΣ, Δ.: Καταλήγω σε διαφορετικό συμπέρασμα για τουςλόγουςπου εκτίθενταιεν εκτάσειστηναπό<ραση τοκεί μενοτηςοποίαςείναιέτοιμοκαιδίδωαντίγραφοστουςδικη γόρους. , ' 25ΐ ΚΟΥΡΡΗΣ,Δ.: Είχατην ευκαιρίανα διαβάσω την από φασητουκ.Πικήκαισυμφωνώπλήρωςκαιδενέχωναπρο σθέσωτίποτε. * Reportedin
(1986)3C.L.R. 539. 865 Christophidou v. Republic
(1988)("KOURRIS J.: I had the opportunity to read in advance the judgmentofPikis,J.Iaminfull agreement andhavenothingto add"). A.LOIZOUP.:Thejudgmentofthemajority oftheCourt(A. Loizou, Malachtos, Sawides) will bedelivered by Mr. Justice 5 Sawides. SAWIDES J.: This is an appeal against the first instance judgmentofaJudgeofthisCourtincaseNo.435/79wherebyhe dismissed therecourseoftheappellantchallengingthevalidityof thedecisionoftherespondentsbywhichherpropertyunderreg- 10 istration No. 4227, plots Nos.423,424, 425,426/1 and 427, situatedatKalianavillage,wascompulsorilyacquired. Theproperty of the appellant,together withcertain adjacent plotsoflandbelongingtootherpersonsandwhichhadalsobeen acquired bytheRepublicofCyprus,consistofabuildingoftra- 15 ditionalarchitectureknownasthe"InnofKaliana".Suchinnwas formerlyownedjointlybytheappellantandotherco-ownersand wasinfact acompoundbuildingasitappearsinthephotographs which areexhibitsbefore usandaswehaveseenitatalocalinspectionatthevillage.Thefront partconsistsofsixarchessup- 20 porting a terrace with roomson the ground and the firstfloor. The appellant was originally the owner of l/3rd of the whole buildingbutafter asub-divisionbetweentheownerstheappellant wasallotted apartcorresponding totwoarcheswiththerespective part of the terrace and the rooms on the ground and first 25 floor. Duetothenatureofthepropertyandtheneedforitspreservation asasampleofoldtraditional typeofpopulararchitectureas an "Inn"theDepartmentofAntiquitiesdecidedin 1976thatsuch "Inn" should bepreserved asanancient monument and made a 30 recommendation tothateffect totheCouncilofMinisters. Onthe23rdSeptember, 1977,anorderoftheCouncilofMin866 3 C.L.R! Christophidou v. Republic Sawides J. isters was published in the official Gazettedeclaring the said propeny anancientmonumentandemplacing it in theSecond Scheduleof theAntiquities Law, Cap.31.Theappellantdidnot challengethisorderbymeansof arecourse. 5 On 6th October, 1978, anoticeof acquisition of appellant's property waspublished intheofficial Gazette.Theappellant ob jected buttheCouncilof Ministersrejected theobjection and on the28th September, 1979,therelevant orderof acquisition was publishedintheofficial Gazette.Thepurposeofpublicbenefitin10 tendedtobeservedby thesaidacquisition was, accordingto the notice of acquisition and the subsequent order of acquisition, which sets out such purposes in the terms of paragraph (h)of sub-section
(2)of section 3 of theCompulsory Acquisition of Property Law, 1962 (Law 15/62)/for "archaeological excava15 tionsorthemaintenanceoruseful valorization (αξιοποίησης)of ancientmonumentsorantiquitiesorthedevelopmentof thesur roundingareas"andthenspecifically setting outsuchpurpose as being "die maintenanceor useful valorization (αξιοποίησις) of ancientmonumentsorantiquitiesinthevillageofKaliana". 20 As aresulttheappellantfiled recourseNo.435/79challenging suchorderonthe"grounds that: (a)Herproperty is neitheranancientmonumentnoran anti quity; , / (b)Thenoticeof acquisition does notspecify adequately the 25 purposeof theacquisition andfurther all theprerequisites ofthe law arenotsatisfied;and I ' ' (c)Therespondents did notconsider an alternative solution lessoneroustothe appellant. We neednotrelatethefacts ofthecaseatlengthastheyappear 30 inthefirstinstance(seeChristophidou v.TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R.'p. 539). " _A Thegroundsofappealraisedbythenoticeof appealare that: 1.The decision of the first instance Courtis wrong as the 867 Sawides J. Christophidou v. Republic
(1988)Courtmisinterpreted andwronglyappliedthelaw. 2. The decision is theproduct of misconception of lawand fact 3.Thefindingsoffact arenotjustified bytheevidence before theCourt. 4.ThetrialCourtmisinterpreted andmisapplied thecaselaw onthematter. Counselforappellantinarguinghisgroundsofappealsubmittedthat: (a)ThetrialCourtwronglytreatedappellant'spropertyas"an io antiquity"or"anancientmonument"subjecttocompulsoryacquisition undertheCompulsory Acquisition ofPropertyLaw(Law 15/62).Theterms"AncientMonument"or"Antiquity"insection 3
(2)(h)ofLaw 15/62shouldnot,counselsubmitted,begiventhe samemeaning asthat attached tothembytheAntiquitiesLaw, 15 Cap.31, butthatthey shouldbegiven themeaningattached to them bythe Constitution andtheImmovable Propeny (Tenure RegistrationandValuation)Law,Cap.224. Hefurther contendedonthispointthatthepropertyoftheappellantwhichwasconstructedin 1923cannotunderanycircum- 20 stancesbetreated asan "AncientMonument"or"Antiquity"for thepurposes of s.3
(2)(h)ofLaw 15/62enablingitscompulsory / acquisition. Healsoargued that s. 6
(1)and
(2)of theAntiquitiesLaw (Cap.31)enablingtheappropriate authoritytodeclarebuildings 25 asancientmonuments areunconstitutional astheycreateanimpedimentordeprivetheownerofthefreeenjoyment ofhispropertywithoutatthesametimemakingprovisionforthepaymentof compensation for theinjurious effects resulting therefrom. The reason,counselsubmitted,theappellantdidnotchallengethede- 30 cisiontoincludeherhouseintheSecondScheduleoftheAntiqui868 3 C.L.R. Christophidou v. Republic Sawides J. tiesLaw asan"AncientMonument"was becauseshehadbeenal lowedtooccupy andenjoy herproperty inaccordancewiththe policy of theAntiquities Departmentaccordingtowhichwhena propertywas declaredanAncientMonumentand was included in 5 ScheduleΒof theLaw, theowner was notdeprived of thepos sessionandenjoyment of suchproperty.Suchpolicy appearsin theletterof theAntiquities Departmentdated22ndJune, 1979,to theDirectorof theMinistry of CommunicationsandWorksthe materialpartofwhichreadsasfollows: 10 15 "Finally Iobservethatnoonewillpreventtheoccupiersof suchbuilding tousethemashousesoroffices etc.whenthey willbedeclared as AncientMonumentsintheSecondSched ule.Onthecontraryitis thepolicy of ourDepartment to en courage the owners to use them because in this way we achieve thepreservation andimprovementof AncientMonu mentswhichwemaintainandrestoretotheiroriginal form." (b) ThetrialCourtfailedtotakeintoconsiderationthefactthat appellant's housewas theonly accommodationshehadfor her self andherfamily andthatby theacquisition ordershewasde20 prived of such accommodation.Theimportanceof this fact is stressedintheletterof theDistrictOfficer which appears inthe relevant file. (c)Theprerequisite unders.4 of theCompulsory Acquisition ofPropertyLaw thatapropertycanonlybecompulsorily acquired 25 if itis shown thattheacquisitionisnecessary for apurposebene ficial tothepublic,hasnotbeensatisfied. Thepurposeof the ac quisition inthesaidnoticewas very vague andgeneral andnot specifically explaining thepurpose for which it was acquired. Therefore,counselsubmitted,thetrialCourtwronglyfoundthat 30 theacquisition was infact necessary for apurpose beneficial to thepublicandthatthepurposeof theacquisitionwasclearly stat edinthe notice ofacquisition. (d)TheCourtwronglyfound thatthediscretionof theacquir ingauthoritywas reasonably exercised. Inreachingsuch finding, 869 Sawides J. Christophidou v. Republic
(1988)counsel submitted,thetrial Courtrelied onfacts unsupported by evidenceandneverbroughttotheknowledgeoftheappellant and inparticulartothefollowingfindingofthetrialCourt(atp.548): "...thecompleteindifference andthelackofinterestfor the restoration oftheinnbytheowners ofitandthefruitless at- 5 temptsofthatDepartmenttocometoanarrangementwithall theowners for therestorationof theinn. (See blue 8para.2 (γ)ofthe letteroftheDirectorofAntiquities tothe Director GeneraloftheMinistryofCommunicationsandWorksin File 41/76)" Such allegations are entirely unfounded;if theowners ofthe adjoining parts toappellant's property might have behaved in such manner,such conductcannotbe attributedtotheappellant and this isapparentfrom thematerial intherelevantfile and in particularintheletteroftheDistrictOfficer ofNicosiadated28th 15 November, 1978, by which hesubmitted hiscommentson the objections received by him against theacquisition inwhichhe mentions, inter alia, that "itis known that the property under acquisition is part of the inn of Kaliana, the applicant carried out extensive repairs which cost £3000 -£3500". 20 We neednotembark atlengthonthefirstargumentofcounsel for appellantastothenatureofanAncient Monumentunder the Antiquitis Law andtheCompulsory Acquisition ofProperty Law, the Constitutionalityof section 6
(1)and
(2)of the Antiquities Law, orwith theexplanations offered byhimfornotchallenging 25 thedecision declaring appellant's property asanancient monu ment.What was beingchallenged byappellant'srecoursewas the order forcompulsory acquisition anditis only with suchorder we have todeal inthis appeal. Itis commonground thatwhen appellant's propeny was compulsorily acquired it was already 30 a declared ancient -:. monumentinthe Second Schedule ofthe Antiquities Law. All arguments raised bycounsel forappellant in this respect might have been material inarecourse against the order declaring such property as ancient monument, though, in ouropinion, which is in line with theopinion ex- 35 pressed by the learned trial Judge, such recourse would be 870 10 3 C.L.R. Christophidou v. Republic Sawides J. barred by limitation of time. The second argument advanced by counsel for the appellant thattheproperty acquiredis theonlyhouseaccommodationofthe appellantandherfamily doesnotamounttoagroundfor setting 5 asideanacquisition order. Noprovision existsinthelaw exempt ing such property from acquisition. Onthecontrary provision is madeinsuchcases underparagraph
(1)of section 10ofLaw 15/ 1962 thatthecompensation may beassessedbearing inmindthe reasonable expensesrequired for thereinstatementof theowner 10 of theproperty acquired toanotherproperty!Theargumentraised inthisrespect, therefore,fails. We comenexttoconsiderthequestion as towhetherthe find ing of thelearned trial Judge thatthepurpose of the acquisition was clearly stated in thenoticeof acquisition andwhether such 15 purpose was inthepublic interest,was theproperonein thecir cumstances. Whether it is necessary thatproperty is tobe acquired for a purpose tothebenefit of thepublic,is amattertobedecided by theGovernment and in the absence of any validreasons tothe 20 contrarythedecision of theGovernmentsotodocannotbeinter^ fered with by thisCourt(seeLordosLtd. andOthers v. TheRepublic
(1974)3 C.L.R.447). The learned trial Judge in disposing of this question con cluded as follows atpp.545-546: 25 "As totherequirementof theproperty for apurposeof public benefit, this becomes evidentfromthematerial in thefilespro duced.Theproperty was required for thepurposeof preserving and restoring buildings of traditional architecture,which is one of thepurposes listedinsection 3ofLaw 15/62. 30 Inowcometotheclarity of thepurpose of theacquisitionin question.Thenoticeof acquisition,which waspublished inSup plementNo.3PartΠ of theOfficial Gazetteof theRepuplic, dat871 Sawides J. Christophidou v. Republic
(1988)ed the6thOctober, 1978,underNotification 1044,reads: *Διάτουπαρόντος γνωστοποιείταιότι ηεντωπαρατιθεμένω Πίνακι περιγραφόμενηακίνητοςιδιοκτησίαείναι αναγκαία διατονακόλουθονσκοπόνδημοσίαςωφελείας, ήτοι δι'αρχαιολογικός ανασκαφας ήτηνσυντήρησιν ή 5 αξιοποίησιν αρχαίων μνημείωνή αρχαιοτήτων ήτηνανάπτυξιν των πέριξ κειμένωνχώρωνκαιηαπαλλοτρίωαις αυτής επιβάλλεταιδιατουςακολούθους λόγους,ήτοι δια την συντήρησινήαξιοποίησιν αρχαίων μνημείωνήαρχαι οτήτωνειςτοχωρίονΚαλιανα.' 10 (' Itis hereby notified that theimmovable property-de scribed intheattachedScheduleisnecessary for thefollowing purposeofpublic benefit, thatisforarchaelogical excavations or thepreservation or improvement ofancientmonuments or antiquities orthedevelopment ofthesurrounding places and 15 its acquisition isrequired forthefollowingreasons,thatis the preservation orimprovementofancientmonumentsorantiqui tiesinthevillageofKaliana.') Considering thecontentsof thelast partof theabove notices whichreads'itsacquisition isrequiredforthefollowing reasons, 20 thatisthepreservation orimprovementofancientmonuments or antiquities in thevillageofKaliana'andwhich are,in mymind, very clearofwhatitwas intendedandmeantbythem, Ifindthat astheapplicantfailed tochallenge thedeclarationofherproperty as anancientmonumentshe cannotnow be successful inherre- 25 coursebywhich sheisinfact attacking thepurposeforwhichthe respondent seeks thecompulsory acquisition ofherproperty. In any event, theapplicanthasfailed tosatisfy methatthepurpose for which herproperty iscompulsorily acquired isnot onewhich isforthepublic benefit. Thisground is, therefore dismissed." We agree with thelearned trial Judge ontheabove.Wehave preferred however inthisjudgment tousefor the Greek word "αξίοποίησίς" the English term "useful valorization" andnot 872 3 C.L.R. Christophidou v. Republic Sawides J. "development". Useful valorization (αξιοποίησις)of theproperty inquestion togetherwith theadjoining properties composing theInnof Kali anawas earmarkedby theGovernmenteversince 1976.The Di5 rectorof Antiquities by aletterdated7thAugust, 1976,tothe Di rector-Generalof theMinistry of CommunicationsandWorks on thequestion of requisitioning theInnof Kaliana stressedthe importanceof itsmaintenance, preservation anduseful valoriza tion(αξιοποίησις).*Ιηhisopinion: 10 15 "
(1)(
- a)Theinnof Kalianaconstitutes anexcellent sample of populararchitectureinthefieldof grouplodging establish mentsandbuildings ofpublic use. (b)Itpreservesmostofthecharacteristicelements(e.g. two storey building, arches, verandas etc.) of buildings of the mountainousareasof theisland. (
- c)Thebuilding by itselfforms,fromthearchitecturalpoint of view, anentityuniqueinitskindfor theareainwhichit is situated,aswellasfor thewhole of Cyprus. 20
(2)Therefore, thisinnshould bepreserved andrestoredto itsoriginal conditionasoneof themostrepresentativesamples of theculturalinheritanceof theisland ". andwentontoenumerateanumberofreasons for theimmediate requisition of thewhole building for preventing its completede struction, such as the desertion of most part of it in a ruinous 25 condition, its falling into disuse, the absolute indifference of < someof theowners for its maintenance andtherepairof partof it by oneofitsowners (theappellantinthisappeal)inanunaccepta ble mannerfor use as herdwelling. He stressed in his letter the need for its requisition "topre30 vent an unprecedented destruction of a building of eminentim portance from thepoint of view of popular architecture andto' 873 Sawides J. Christophidou v. Republic
(1988)preserve a unique sample of the cultural inheritance of our land". Alsointhe minutesof themeetingof theAntiquities Advisory Committeeof 20th September, 1976,wereadinconnectionwith theInnof Kaliana "...theChairman madereference totheeffort 5 of preservation of housesandcomplexesof popularArchitecture andspecifically inthework of thePolytechnicof AthensatKakopetriawhichwillshortly bedeclaredasanancientmonumentfor the purpose of its maintenance and useful valorization (αξιοποίησις).Forthesamereason therequisition tookplaceof 10 a building atKalianawhichhadbeenusedinthepastas "Inn". In thefuture the"Inn"willbeacquiredandwillbeusedby theGov ernment ...". In thesubmission totheCouncilof Ministersfor its acquisi tion itwas laid stresstothefact thatthe property of theappellant 15 was forming partof acompoundbuilding uniqueinitscharacter which should be preserved as such in its totality and notonly partly byexcluding theappellant'sproperty. Thepurposes of itsacquisitionasmentionedearlierareclearly statedinthenoticeof acquisition.Theyareforthepublicinterest 20 and specifically for the maintenanceand useful valorization (αξιοποίησις)of ancientmonuments.Theuseful valorization of such monumentcantaken severalforms andvarious ideas have been expressed by theAntiquities Department.We donotagree with thesubmission ofcounselfor theappellantthatall suchpur- 25 poses areoutside thescopeof useful valorization(αξιοποίησις) of theproperty,toserveits purposeas anacientmonumentinits characterasan "Inn".Werejectthesubmission madeby counsel for theappellantthatthepropertywas acquiredtoserveextrane ousmotives andnotfor purposes ofpublicinterest. 30 We comenow tothelastpointraisedbycounselfor theappel lantthatthelearnedtrialJudgeinfindingthatthediscretionofthe respondentwas reasonably exercised relied onfacts which were neverbroughttotheknowledge of theappellant.Reference to the relevant part in the judgment has already been made. The 35 874 3 C.L.R. Christophidou v. Republic Sawides J. learnedtrialJudgemadereferenceinhisjudgmenttotheletterof theDirectorofAntiquitiesdated7thAugust, 1976.Infactinsuch letternomentionismadeof theindifference of theappellantto maintainherpartofthepropertybuttotheobjectionoftheDirec5 tortotherepairscarriedoutbytheappellantwhichinhisopinion wereunacceptableastheyweremadeforthepurposeofconvertingpartoftheInnintoadwellinghousefortheneedsoftheappellantandherfamily,ausewhichdidnotcoincidewiththeuse ofthe"Inn"initstotalityassuchandthuspreventedthemainte10 nanceanduseful exploitationoftheInnasawhole.Furthermore, in thesaidletterreference ismadeto "someof theowners"as having abandoned theproperty in aruinous condition and it is clearthatsuchreferenceisnotextendedtotheappellantforwhom specificreferenceismade.TheletteroftheDirectorofAntiquities 15 isclearandreferencebythelearnedtrialJudgetothelackofinterestbytheownersforitsrestoration shouldbetreatedas referencetotheownersoftheother2/3rdsofthe"Inn"inquestion. ,FurtherinhisjudgmentthelearnedtrialJudgegaveasoneof thereasonsforjustifying theacquisition,thefact that applicant 20 "showednowillingnesstoco-operatewiththeDepartmentofAntiquities despitetheattemptsonanumberofoccasionsbythatDe-. partmenttoenterthepropertyforthatpurpose".Theappellanthas stronglycontestedthatsherefusedtoco-operatewiththeAntiquitiesDepartmenteversinceherproperty wasdeclared asanAn25 cientMonumentandinfactwecouldnottraceanythinginthe file whereby the attention of the appellant was drawn to this , fact and noevidence wascalled in supportof such contention. We,therefore,considerthatthisfact shouldnothavebeenrelied uponandgiven anyweight.Neverthelessfromthematerialbe30 fore usitemanatesthat theappellant'sproperty thoughcovered byseparatetitleispartofoneandthesamecompoundbuilding whichforms the"inn"inquestion.TheConversion of the l/3rd ofsuchInnbytheappellanttoadwellinghouseforherselfand herfaminly andtherepairswhich shecarried outfor suchpur35 posecannotcoincidewiththemaintenanceandusefulvalorization of the "Inn",as a whole, compound and unique structure. We . agreewiththeobservationscontained intheletter.oftheDirector 875 Sawides J. Christophidou v. Republic
(1988)of Antiquities/fhat therepairscarriedoutbytheappellantandthe use made by hercannot bein linewith the maintenance of the character^of the "Inn"assuchoncepartof itcannot1>erestored and bemaintained initsoriginalcondition. Itisourconclusion that thediscretion of theacquiring authority wasproperly exer- 5 cisedinthiscase. For all the abovereasons thisappeal fails andis herebydismissedbutinthecircumstanceswemakenoorderforcosts. PIKISJ.: Theappellant ispart-ownerof aninnof traditional architecture situateontheoutskirtsofKalianavillage,ontheold 10 roadconnecting Soleavalley withtheupperreachesofTroodos mountains.In 1976thepropertywasdeclared anancientmonumentin theinterestofpreservation ofourarchitecturalandenvironmentalheritage.Thepropertywaslistedanancientmonument underScheduleB\Theobjectionsoftheappellanttothedeclara- 15 tion wererejected.Sheomitted topursuethemfurther. So,the propertyremainedlisted an ancient monument under Schedule B\ Soon afterwards theproperty wasrequisitioned for thepurposesoffacilitating restoration toitsoriginalcondition.Govern- 20 mentpolicywithregardtothepreservationofancientmonuments isreflected inanoteofMr.Karageorghis,theDirectoroftheDepartment of Antiquities, dated 24/6/79. The preservation of ScheduleB'AncientMonuments,wasbestachievedbyallowing theownerstooccupythemwhileengagingthemtopreserve the 25 character of the properties. Acquisition of theproperty should onlybecontemplatedintheeventoftheownerexpressingawish todemolish thepremises.Thepolicyofgovernmentreflected in theabovenoteiscompatiblewiththeultimateobjectofpreserving Schedule B* Ancient Monuments,ina usablecondition, on the 30 one hand and, the objects of the Antiquities Law - Cap. 31,as amended byLaws48/64and 32/73.Section 8of thelaw,inparr ticular, prohibits the making of anyadditions or alterations to Schedule B'Ancient Monuments,except inthemanner and for the purposes indicated inthelaw.Specific provision ismadein 35 876 3C.L.R. Christophidou v.Republic PikisJ. subsection 2of,thes. 8forfinancialassistancetotheownersof ancientmonuments tomaintain, preserve and restore themina stateasproximateaspossibletotheiroriginalcondition. Despitethepolicyoftheappropriategovernmentdepartments 5 elicited above,andnotwithstanding theabsenceofanyintention onthepartoftheappellanttodemolishthepremises,theproperty wascompulsorilyexpropriated.Theintentiontoacquiretheproperty was signified on 22/9/78andwithin theperiod envisaged bythe law theacquisition wascompleted by thepublicationof 10 noticeofacquisition.Obviously,thedecisionwasinconflictwith declaredgovernmentpolicy. Vaguesuggestionsweremade,ascanbegatheredfromexamination ofthefile,thatappellantdidnottakemeasuresnecessary for thepreservation of theproperty. Itisnotatallclear whether 15 thesecomplaintsreferredtoaperiodbeforethedeclarationofthe propertyasanancientmonumentanditsrequisitionforpurposes of facilitating restoration. In any event, thematerial in thefile doesnotestablish thatappellant failed torespondtoanysuggestiondeemednecessaryforthepreservationofthecharacterofthe 20 property.Itisindeedprobablethat theAuthoritiesconfused the actionsor,morepertinently,omissionsof co-ownersof thepropertywiththoseoftheappellant.Theappellant,itmustbeadded, resided inthepropertywithheragedparentsandsofarasavisit of thelocuscouldenlighten theCourtaboutthestateof thepre251 mises, theimpression formed wasthat theproperty isproperly 1 maintained. ItappearsitwasinthecontemplationoftheAcquiringAuthoritytomakethepropertyavailable,after acquisition,foruseasa restaurant for theattractionoftouristsinthatarea.Ahintinthat 30; direction wasmadein theletterof Mr.Karageorghis of7thAugust, 1976,whereasthepossibilityofsuchdevelopment wasnot ruled out but,on thecontrary, it was-favourably viewed bythe CyprusTourismOrganisation. Now:Theuseofthepropertyfor touristpurposesisnotinit35 !self anactnecessaryfor thepreservationof theproperty.Onthe 877 Pikis J. Christophidou v. Republic
(1988)contrary,itmaylegitimatelybearguedthatachangeofusewould bringaboutachangeofthecharacteroftheproperty.Useofthe property as a residence by the owners would be nearer to the originaluseoftheproperty,savethatbecauseoftheimprovement andchangeof themeansofcommunication demandfor theser- 5 vicesoftheinn-keeperhasceased.Hencewecannotacceptthat acquisitionofthepropertyforuseas arestaurantwouldpromote theendsof theacquisition specified inthenoticeofacquisition, namely, themaintenanceorutilisation of ancientmonumentsin the village of Kaliana. The Acquiring Authority laboured, it 10 seemstous,underamisconceptionoftheobjectsofthelawwith regard tothepreservation ofancientmonumentsandequallycertainlyfailed toappreciatethefactsrelevantto thepreservationof the property. For these reasons, we are unable to sustain the judgmentofthetrialCourtorvalidatetheactofacquisition. 15 Intheresulttheappealisallowedandthejudgmentofthetrial Courtissetaside.Moreover,thesubjudicedecisionisannulled andishereby declared tobewholly voidpursuant totheprovisionsofarticle 146.4(b)oftheConstitution. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. 20 COURT:Intheresulttheappealisdismissedbymajority with noorderastocosts. Appealdismissedbymajority. withnoorderastocosts. 878