Court orders government to return expropriated land

A judge has upheld a constitutional application filed by Maria Stivala against the government and ordered that property belonging to her and expropriated be restored to her.

In her application, Ms Stivala claimed that in November 1993 she was informed that property belonging to her in Naxxar was to be expropriated as it was required for a public purpose.

She had objected to this expropriation and had claimed that part of the property ought to be restored to her, including that part on which a lotto office had been opened.

In the proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board, the Commissioner of Lands had released part of the unutilised property back to Ms Stivala but had retained that part of the property on which roads had been constructed and on which a lotto office had been built.

Ms Stivala claimed in her application, filed against the Commissioner of Lands, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Lotto, that her fundamental human rights to enjoyment of property had been violated because the expropriation had not taken place for a public purpose but to erect a lotto office, which was being run by third parties.

The Attorney General pleaded that he ought not to have been sued in this case.

All defendants pleaded that the expropriation had taken place for a public purpose, for although the lotto office was run by a self-employed individual, the income from the lotto office entered the Consolidated Fund as the public lotto was run by the government.

Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the First Hall of the Civil Court ruled that the Attorney General need not have been sued since the Commissioner of Lands and the Director of Public Lotto were entrusted with the property in question.

In its judgment the court pointed out that Ms Stivala's contention was that the expropriation of her property had not been in the public interest and that therefore her fundamental human rights had been violated.

Respondents had submitted that lotto receivers were not traders and did not carry out acts of trade.

Respondents had also claimed that public lotto was an activity organised in terms of law and aimed at the public income. The government involved itself in public lotto in the best interests of the economy and to control gambling.

These, the respondents said, were two matters in the public interest.

Mr Justice Valenzia noted that the right of expropriation was a limitation to the fundamental human right of the individual to enjoy his own property.

This limitation had to be applied restrictively and the state could only exercise its rights to expropriation to the extent this was necessary.

The European Convention, the court said, stipulated that expropriation had to take place in the public interest and not merely for a public purpose.

The fact that the government was to carry out an expropriation for a public purpose did not necessarily render such expropriation in the public interest.

The court had therefore to determine whether the expropriation of private property to construct a public lotto office was in the public interest.

It resulted from the evidence produced that the government had originally expropriated Ms Stivala's land in order to construct a square and a road.

The scheme was later changed and the government had utilised part of the land to construct a road and had returned the remainder of the land that had not been utilised to Ms Stivala, except for the land on which the lotto office had been built.

Mr Justice Valenzia ruled that once the Commissioner of Lands had not required all the expropriated land, the land ought to have been returned to its original owner.

He therefore concluded that it was not in the public interest for respondents to have retained that part of Ms Stivala's land on which a lotto office had been constructed.

Respondents were ordered to return the land to Ms Stivala.