clr/1988/1988_3_91.pdf

(1988)the submission toitandinareport bytheTown andPlanning Department—Decision cannotbefaultedonthataccount. Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Canemergefromrfheadministrative file. Compulsoryacquisition—TheCompulsoryAcquisitionLaw15/62, sections5

(1)and18. 5 Bias—Mustbeestablishedbyevidence. Two separate recourses of the appellants challenging on various groundsthevalidityoftheacquisitionandrequisitionoftheirpropertiesat Zyghi were dismissed by a Judge of this Court. These are the appeals from suchJudgments. The main points of the appellants are: (

1. a)Failure on thepart of the acquiringauthority toachievethesameendsbyanalternativecourseentailinglesshardshipthanthatwhichthecoursethatwasfollowed entailed in fact to the appellants, (
2. b)Discriminatory conduct in favour of the firm K.N.K.PaltichisLtd.bytheacceptanceinpartof theletter'sobjec- 15 tions against the acquisition, (c)Thefact thattheproperties inquestion wererequisitioned simultaneously withthenoticeofacquisitioncreateda faitaccompli,whichprevented fairexaminationsoftheobjectionsagainst theacquisition, (d)Thedecision of theCouncil of Ministers todismiss theobjectionsandsanction theacquisition wasnotspecially reasoned,(
3. e)20 Thesanctioningoftheacquisition wasdefectivebecauseitwasaccompaniedbyarevocationof thenoticetoacquirepropertiesoftheFirmofPaltichis,(f)TheTownPlanningDepartmentdidnotqualify asanagentfor thepurposeofundertakingpreparatoryworkundertheprovisionsofs.5(
4. l)of Law 15/62,aparticipation thatcouldnotbevalidated undertheprovi- 25 sionsof s.18envisaging theappointmentofanauthorizedagent. Held, dismissing theappeals:

(1)Incontemplating andeffecting the acquisitionof land,theexpropriatingauthority isunderadutytoconsider thehardshiplikelytobefallindividualownersandbalanceitbytheexplorationof alternativemeansof achievingtheacquisition,ifavailable,with- 30 intheframework oftheplan.Themeasureofacquisitionandtheextentof thelandrequired aremattersprimarily fallingwithinthediscretionofthe acquiringauthority. Ponderationoftheelementofhardshipis,likeeveryothermeasure,incidentaltoanadministrativeact,amatterofdiscretionfortheacquiringau- 35 thority.ThetaskoftheCourtisconfined toareviewoftheexerciseofadministrativediscretion. 92 10 3 CX.R. Demetriou and Others v. Republic

(2)LikethetrialCourtthisCourthadnotbeenpersuaded thattheAdministrationactedperemptorilyortheyweremotivatedbyadesiretoshow favourtothefirmofK.N.K.PaltichisLtd.becauseoftheidentityofoneof itsshareholdersordirectors,namelyNicosPaltichis. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Biascannot bepresumed (Kontemeniotis v.CB.C.

(1982)3C.L.R. 1027); it must beestablished byevidence.That Mr.Paltichis served at some time as a Minister or as a Mayorof Limassol,could notof itself giverisetoaninferenceofbiasonthepartoftheAdministration.

(3)Thereisapositiveduty on thepart of theacquiring authority to dealwithobjectionsandgiveaspecific answertheretobefore sanctioning theacquisition. Any omission onthepart of theexpropriating authority toobserve theduties castby Art.29 will bestruck down as unconstitutional. Andiftherightsofthesubjectarecircumventedbythepublicationof thesanctioningof theacquisitionwithoutpriordisposalofobjections,the timeenvisagedbyArticle 146.3willnotbeactivated.Thegeneralprincipleisthatthereasoningsupportinganadministrativeactmaybeextracted from thefileofthecase,provideditemergesincontrovertibly andcanbe pegged tothedecision.Inthiscasewearenotconfronted with acaseof lackofreasoningbutwiththeincorporationbyreference ofthereasoning ofsubordinatebodies.

(4)Section5

(1)empowersanyofficer orservantof theacquiringauthority to undertake any of the preliminary work contemplated therein. TheTownPlanningDept.isadepartmentof theMinistryof theInterior. Itsofficers qualified asofficers orservantsof theacquiringauthorityand could,inthatcapacity,takeactionunders.5(l).Thatbeingthecase,s.18 becomesirrelevant.

(5)Thenonsanctioningoftheacquisition oftheproperty specified in thenotification or any part thereof within the 12- month period results automatically in the exclusion of the property from the acquired area. Whether revocation wasatall necessary or thesoundnessof thecourse followed neednotbedebatedinthiscase. Appealsdismissed.Noorderasto costs. Casesreferredto: 35 Aspri v.Republic, 4 R.S.C.C.57; 93 Demetriou and Others v. Republic

(1988)Kontemeniotis v. CM.C.

(1982)3C.L.R. 1027; Papacleovoulou v.Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R.187; Co-operativehtore FamagustaLtd. v. Republic

(1974)3 C.L.R.295; HadjiLouca v.Republic

(1969)3C.L.R.570; Chrysochou Bros.v.Republic

(1966)3CL.R.480; 5 Tikkiris andOthers v.EA.C.

(1970)3C.L.R.291; Bakkaliaou v. MunicipalityofFamagusta

(1969)3C.L.R.19; Republic v.Myrtiotis

(1975)3C.L.R.484; ChristodoulidesandOthers v. Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1294; Theodoridou v.Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 146. Appeals. Appeals against the judgments of a Judge of the Supreme Coun of Cyprus (Savvfdes, J) given on the 23rd April, 1986 (Revisional Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 170/79* and.342/7**) whereby appellant'srecourses against therequisition and acquisi- 10 tionof theirproperty atZyghivillagewere dismissed. L. Papaphilippou, for theappellants. N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic,for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. 15 A.LOIZOU J.:Thejudgmentof theCourt will bedelivered by Pikis, J. * Reported in

(1986)3 CL.R. 634. **Reported in

(1986)3 CL.R. 664. 94 3 C.L.R. Demetriou and Others v. Republic PIKISJ.: The appeals aretaken againstdecisions of theSupreme Courtin theexerciseof itsoriginaljurisdiction whereby twoseparaterecoursesoftheappellantdirectedagainsttherequisitionandacquisitionoftheirpropertyatZyghiweredismissed. 5 Theprincipalgroundsuponwhichtheacquisitionofthepropertywaschallengedwere:Firstly,thefailureoftheexpropriating authoritytotakeaccountofthehardshiptotheappellantsinherent inthedecision andavoiditbyadoptingalternativecourses,equallypropitious totheachievementof theirend, butentailingless 10 hardship totheowners.Secondly, thevulnerability of thedecisiononaccountofthediscriminatoryconductoftheacquiringauthorityevidenced bytheacceptanceoftheobjectionsofanother affected owner, namely,thefirm ofK.N.K.PattichisLtd.,who hadnobettercaseforexemptionthantheappellants. 15 Thirdly,thevalidityoftheacquisitionwascontestedfor failure toobservetheformalities envisaged bythelaw.Therequisition of theproperty constituted, inthecontention of appellants,peremptiveactionthatmadedifficult orimpossiblefairexamination oftheobjectionsofownersaffected bytheacquisition. 20 InwellconsideredjudgmentsthetrialCourtfoundunsustainablethecomplaintsof theappellantsanddismissed theirapplications. Similar arguments to those raised before the trial Court werebyenlargeadvanced before usaswell.Toappreciatethem inaproperperspective,briefreference mustnecessarilybemade 25 tothebackground oftheacquisitions,thestepsassociatedtherewithandthefactsallegedlygivingrisetotheoccasionofhardship totheappellants;aswellasthefactsallegedlyfoundingdiscrimination. In theaftermath of theTurkish invasion,plans weredevised 30 fortheestablishmentofsettlementstohousethethousandsofdisplaced persons.In 1977a plan wasapproved for the establishment of settlements in several partsof the Republic involving about2,500housingunits.Theprojectincludedtheestablishment 95 Pikis J. Demetriou and Others v. Republic

(1988)of ahabital atZyghiconsistingof 100houses.After asurveyof thelocation,itwasdecidedtoacquireabout32donumsatZyghi fortheimplementationoftheproject.Theareatobeacquiredincluded aportion of thelandof theappellantsof anextentofapproximatelyfivedonums.On29thJune, 1978,notification ofthe 5 intention of the acquiring authority toexpropriate the land was given in thegazette.Onthesameday anorderofrequisitionof theproperty waspublished;intended,nodoubt,tofacilitate the preparation of theground for theimplementation oftheproject. Theappellants opposed theacquisitioncitingnumerousgrounds 10 in supportof theirobjection. Theprincipal groundsweretheinevitablepartitionof theirpropertythatwouldresultfrom theseveranceofthepartacquired,thetouristpotentialofthelandinconjunction with itsvalueandthecostnecessaryfor its acquisition and undefined plans of theappellants for its development. The 15 firm ofPattichistooobjected totheacquisitionoftheirproperty. Theacquisition wouldentailthedemolitionoflargewarehouses used for thestorageofcarobs,theeviction ofdisplaced families from houses standing on topof thewarehouses and the frustrationofplansforthedevelopmentoftheproperty. 20 Theobjections of bothpartieswereexamined bytheDistrict Officer and in far greater detail by theTown Planning Department,adepartmentoftheMinistryoftheInteriorresponsiblefor promotion of the acquisition. In a thorough report, the Town PlanningDept.debated everyaspectoftheobjections oftheap- 25 pellantsandthefirm ofPattichis.Noindividualfactor should,in theirappreciation bedecisive.Theultimateconsideration andthe onethatovershadowedeveryotherwasthemaximization ofthe social benefit from the project, an exercise entailing reviewof everyfactorrelevanttotheidentification ofsocialbenefit,includ- 30 inghardshiptothoseimmediatelyaffected bytheacquisition. Afterdueponderation of theobjections of theappellants,theydismissed themand recommended the acquisition of their land.In particular, theyrejected thesuggestion that thepartition oftheir landwouldprejudicetheprospectsofdevelopmentoftheremain- 35 ingproperty,pointingoutthattheimplementationoftheacquisitionprojectwouldprovideasecondaccessfromthepropertytoa 96 3 C.L.R. Demetriou and Others v. Republic Pikis J. road. On the otherhand they found theobjections of the firm of Pattichis tojustify theexclusion ofpartof theirproperty.Theyattached importancetotheneedsofcarobproducers of theareaand plans for its development by the owners.The submission of the 5 Ministry oftheinterior totheCouncilofMinisterswasinessence founded on the recommendations of the Town Planning Dept. The Council of Ministers after due consideration of the material placed before it, including theobjections of appellants and those of thefirm ofPattichis,adopted therecommendations of theMin10 istry and dismissed the plea of appellants for exclusion of their property whileitsanctioned theacceptanceinpartof theobjection of thefirmof Pattichis. The foremost ground upon which thejudgment of the trial Courtrelevant totherequisition wascontested, wasthefailure on 15 thepartoftheCourttoappreciatethatrequisition created afaitaccompli thatmadedifficult theappreciation ofobjections totheacquisition in their proper perspective. A similar argument raised before the trial Court wasdismissed on the authority ofAspri v. Republic* where it was decided that therequisition of property 20 does not of itself prejudice the fair examination of objections to the acquisition. The implications of the above decision are that requisition may beresorted toincidentally toplansfor theacquisition of property; provided always that the temporary occupation of theproperty willinnoway,beallowed toaffect thedecision to 25 acquire theproperty. This being the case, we are unable to uphold the submission that therequisition of theproperty neutralized appellants'right to have theirobjectionsproperlyexamined according tolaw. The thrust of appellants' arguments was directed towards 30 questioning thevalidity of theacquisition of theproperty.Theappellantsdid notdisputethefinding of thetrial Court that anadequateopportunity hadbeen granted totheappellantstovoicetheir objections and that noduty wascast onthe Administration to af- *4 RS.C.C. 57,61, 62. 97 Pikis J. Demetriou and Others v. Republic

(1988)ford them anoral hearing. The learned trialjudge had rightly ob­ served thatin purely administrative matters nosuch right vestsin the subject and drew attention to dicta suggesting that it is un­ desirable tojudicialize theprocess of administrative action*. Tiie first ground pressed on appeal revolved round the find- 5 ings ο."theCoun thattheinquiry held toascertain hardship tothe appellants and theexploration of alternative ways of implement­ ing theacquisition was inadequate.Counsel laid stress on thede­ cisions of theSupreme Courtin ChrysochouBros. v.Republic** and Tikkiris and Others v. ElectricityAuthorityof Cyprus***es- 10 tablishing that in contemplating and effecting the acquisition of land, theexploration of alternative meansof achieving theacqui­ sition, if available, within the framework of theplan.Intheendit must appear thathardship was an unavoidable consequence of the implementation of theproject. 15 We endorse theprinciples adopted in the above cases, as well as thereality acknowledged in thecase of Tikkiris (supra) thatthe neccessity of themeasure of acquisition andtheextentof thelar.d required are matters primarily falling within thediscretion of the acquiring authority. We must add that ponderation of the element of hardship is, likeevery othermeasure incidentaltoanadministrative act,amat­ ter of discretion for theacquiring authority. The task of theCourt is confined toareview of theexercise of administrative discretion within the framework of the powers of this Court under Art. 25 146.1 of theConstitution. * Koniemeniotis v. CMC.

(1982)3 CXJf., 1027,1033; Papacleovoulou v. Republic

(1982)3 CL.R. 187; Co-operative Stores of Famagusta v. Republic

(1974)3 CL.R. 295; HadjiLouca v. The Republic

(1969)3 CLJi. 570. **

(1966)3CL.R.488. ***

(1970)3 CL.R. 291. 98 2 0 3 C.L.R. Demetriou and Others v. Republic Pikis J. Counsel argued that the acquiring authority abused their discretion by making an unwarranted distinction between the hardshipthatbefell them andthat associated with theacquisition ofthe property of the firm of Pattichis. A faint suggestion was also 5 made that theneedsof theacquiring authority might be satisfied by theuseof abandoned Turkish properties. The trialCourt wentthoroughly intothisaspectof thecaseand found that theobjections of the appellant were properly considered and that the action of the authority to differentiate between 10 them and the firm of Pattichis was not arbitrary. Like the trial Court weremain unpersuaded that the Administration acted peremptorily or they were motivated by adesire to show favour to the firm of K.N.K. Pattichis Ltd. because of the identity of one of its shareholders ordirectors, namely, Nicos Pattichis.Thisas15 sociation and the inferences that may bedrawn therefrom, were alsomade aseparate ground of appeal founded ontheproposition thatthesubjudiceact wasinvalidated bybreach ofthe fundamental duty of the Administration to treat equally all those who are similarly circumstanced (Art.28.1). 20 Biascannot bepresumed;* itmustbeestablished byevidence. ThatMr.Pattichis served at sometimeasaMinisteroras aMayorof Limassol,could notof itself giverisetoaninference of bias onthepartoftheAdministration. Notaniotaofevidence wasadduced suggesting that theCouncil of Ministersor anyof thesub25 ordinate organs whodealt with theobjections of theparties was inclined toshowfavour tothefirm in which Mr. Pattichis hadan interest. Inthefaceofthisrealitytheconclusion ofthetrial Court that allegations of bias remained unsubstantiated was perfectly warrantedandnothingfurther needbesaidonthe subject. 30 Theappellantsalsocontestedtheadequacyof thereasoningof the Council of Ministers sanctioning the acquisition. Reying on * Kontemeniotis v.C.B.C.

(1982)3 CL.R.1027. 99 ΡΉis J. Demetriou and Others v. Republic

(1988)theauthorityofBakkaliaouv.Municipality ofFamagusta* coun­ sel argued thatthedecisiontosanctiontheacquisitionandreject theobjections ought tohave been specially reasoned.Theabove cas oes notsupport thepropositionpropoundedby counsel.Its impi ancelay intheacknowledgment of apositiveduty onthe 5 part / theacquiring authority todeal with objections andgivea specii c answer theretobefore sanctioning theacquisition. Any omissii η onthepartof theexpropriatingauthoritytoobserve the duties tast by Art. 29 will be struck down asunconstitutional. And if therights of thesubject arecircumvented by thepublica- 10 tionof thesanctioningof theacquisition withoutpriordisposal of objections, thetimeinterval envisaged by Art. 146.3 will notbe activated. Thegeneral principleis thatthereasoning supporting an administrative actmay beextracted from thefileof thecase, provided itemerges incontrovertibly andcanbepeggedtothede- 15 cision**. Inthiscasewe arenotconfrontedwith acaseoflackof reasoning butwith theincorporationby reference of thereasoning of subordinate bodies.TheCouncilof Ministersadoptedthesub­ mission of theMinisterfor thereasons indicatedinthe proposal of theMinistry which wereinturnessentially founded ontheas- 20 sessment of thesituation by theTown PlanningDept.The deci­ sion toacquireandthejudgmentof thetrial Court thatupheldits validitycannotbefaulted onthisgroundeither. Lastly,theprocess of acquisition was questionedasfaulty and its sanctioning defective; because thefinalizationof theacquisi- 25 tion was accompaniedby anactof revocationof thenoticetoac­ quire inso far as it affected theproperty of thefirmof Pattichis excluded from theproject.Theargumentsfor theappellantsare to thefollowingeffect: TheTownPlanningDept. didnotqualify as an agent for thepurpose of undertakingpreparatory work under 30 theprovisions of s.5

(1)of Law 15/62,aparticipationthatcould *

(1969)3 CL.R.19. ** Republic v.Myrtiotis

(1975)3 CL.R. 484. Christodoulides and Others v. Republic

(1984)3 CLR. 1294. Theodoridou v. Republic

(1984)3 CL.R. 146. 100 3 C.L.R. Demetriou and Others v. Republic Pikis J. not be validated either under the provisions of s. 18 envisaging the appointment of anauthorized agent. Theobjection cannot be sustained. Section 5

(1)empowers any officer or servant of the acquiring authority to undertake any of the preliminary 5 workcontemplated therein.TheTownPlanningDept.isadepartment of theMinistry of theInterior. Itsofficers qualified as officers or servants of the acquiring authority and could, in tHatcapacity, take action under s.5(l). That being the*case, s.18 becomes irrelevant. An appreciation thatcoincides with theview 10 taken of the matter bythelearned trialjudge. Section 7

(2)of the Compulsory Acquisition Law (15/62)makesitclearthatthesanctioning of an acquisition within the time limit envisaged therein (12months) is acondition precedent tothefinalization of the act. Itisspecifically provided thattheacquisition contemplated by the 15 relevant notification lapses in relation tothe whole or part thereof unless sanctioned within the 12 - months period. The law does not require the revocation of the notice so far as it affects property eventually excluded from theacquisition. Notification is but apreparatory act. The non sanctioning of the acquisition of 20 theproperty specified inthenotification oranypartthereof within the 12-month period results automatically in theexclusion of the property from the acquired area. Hence the non inclusion in the notice of acquisition of thepropertiesnotintended tobe acquired was sufficient to exclude them. That being the case, we are in 25 agreement withthelearned trialjudge that thesanctioning of the acquisition wasvalidly made.Whetherrevocation was atallnecessary or the soundnessof thecoursefollowed need not bedebated in this case. It suffices to confirm that the notice to sanction wasnotinvalidatedon that account. 30 Having carefully considered every aspect of the appeal, we conclude that thereis noroomfor interference with thejudgment ofthetrialCourt. In theresult, theappeals aredismissed. Noorder astocosts. Appeals dismissed. No orderas costs. oc 101