A court yesterday ordered the Commissioner of Lands to pay €50,000 (Lm21,465) to a family by way of compensation for the violation of their fundamental human rights when their property in Sliema was expropriated in 1991.

Mr Justice Tonio Mallia presided over the case filed by the owners of a house in Parisio Street, Sliema against the Lands Commissioner and against the Attorney General.

The owners told the court that their property had been expropriated in January 1991 on the basis that it was required for a public purpose. However, the property had never been utilised and had been allowed to deteriorate. The owners claimed a violation of their right to enjoyment of property and their right to compensation, adding that they had never received any offer of payment from the government.

Mr Justice Mallia declared that, in order for land to be expropriated, the authorities had to clearly identify the public purpose to which the land was to be put. It was not sufficient to indicate some possible project as, otherwise, it would be easy, under the pretext of public interest, to damage the owners' rights.

In this case, no project or plan for the property expropriated had existed. Since 1991 no action had been taken in respect of the property. Although the Lands Commissioner told the court that there was a plan to, at some time, build a road through the Sliema property, the court found that there was no real or actual project in this regard. It was up to the state to prove that the expropriation was necessary and it had failed to do so.

While it was true that the government was entitled to decide which projects to implement in the public interest, it was also true that it was not right that the owners of the Sliema property had been left in a state of uncertainty about their property for 16 years. It was therefore clear in this case that there was no fair balance between the interests of the public as a whole and the individual owners' right to enjoyment of their property.

Mr Justice Mallia declared that the procedures governing expropriation in 1991 (since amended) stipulated that, after issuing the declaration of expropriation, the Lands Commissioner had to notify the owner with a notice to treat, offering compensation for the expropriation. If the owner did not agree with the offer, then the owner had to notify the Lands Commissioner within 21 days. After the notice from the owners, the Lands Commissioner could then commence proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board to establish the compensation due.

But, unfortunately, the law did not impose any time limit upon the Lands Commissioner as to when he had to issue the notice to treat. Nor was there any time limit upon the Commissioner of Lands to commence proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board. In practice, the Lands Commissioner often took many years to initiate proceedings.

The court declared that such attitude on the part of the Commissioner was deplorable, and that it was abusive on his part not to take any action for over 16 years.

On the other hand, the owners had also been lacking for they had failed to take any judicial action against the Lands Commissioner to force him to conclude the expropriation process. Persons who had failed to make use of the ordinary law to obtain a remedy for 16 years could not then expect to receive damages.

In conclusion, the court ordered the release of the premises in favour of the owners. But the property had sustained a lot of damage and the owners had been precluded from making use of it for 16 years. The property was valued at Lm275,000 (€640,577).

The court decided to award the owners compensation for the damage sustained by the property and as moral damages.

Costs were apportioned as to one-third to the owners and two-thirds to the Commissioner of Lands.