Judges order government to restore expropriated land

The Constitutional Court yesterday dismissed an appeal filed by the government from a decision of the First Hall of the Civil Court.

The appellate court however varied that part of the judgment dealing with costs.

The judgment was delivered following a case filed by Maria Stivala against the Commissioner of Lands, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Lotto.

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, insisting 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 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, run by third parties.

The authorities 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 went into the Consolidated Fund as public lotto was run by the government.

The first court ruled that the Attorney General need not have been sued as the Commissioner of Lands and the Director of Public Lotto were entrusted with the property in question.

It also ruled 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 noted, 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 expropriate property for a public purpose did not necessarily render such expropriation in the public interest.

Once the Commissioner of Lands had not required all the expropriated land, this ought to have been returned to its original owner.

The first court therefore found in favour of Ms Stivala and ordered the authorities to return the land to her. The government was ordered to pay all the costs of the litigation.

All three governmental authorities involved lodged an appeal to the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

The Attorney General submitted that once he had been declared to be non-suited, then he ought not to have been condemned to pay costs in this litigation.

This plea was upheld by the Constitutional Court, which varied the judgment appealed from and ordered Ms Stivala to pay the Attorney General's costs.

The Constitutional Court however dismissed all other grounds of appeal entered by the authorities and confirmed the remainder of the first court's judgment. The authorities were ordered to return the land to Ms Stivala.