A woman has been awarded €25,000 in compensation after a court concluded that the 1984 expropriation of her property in Birkirkara for social housing purposes was in violation of her fundamental human rights.
Marija Mifsud filed her constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court against the Commissioner of Lands and the Prime Minister.
She told the court that in 1984 two properties she owned in an alley off Laqxija Street, Birkirkara had been expropriated by the government for a social purpose.
The authorities had built a housing estate and roads on an area of land which included her property.
By way of compensation, the Commissioner had offered her Lm8.40 per annum. Ms Mifsud had refused the compensation which she deemed to be "miserable" but the offer was confirmed by the Land Arbitration Board.
An architect produced in court by Ms Mifsud said that the properties in question would have a commercial value of Lm20,000 (€46,587) in 2000 and that by 2008 the value of the property would have doubled.
Mr Justice Gino Camilleri declared in yesterday's judgment that the individual had a right to enjoyment of his/her own property but that this right was subject to certain limitations.
The state was empowered to expropriate private property for a public purpose, provided that the conditions established by law were observed. These conditions were that adequate compensation was offered and that the property was expropriated in the public interest.
In this case there was no doubt that the expropriation had taken place in the public interest for a housing estate and roads had been built on the land. However, the court ruled that it had to establish whether Ms Mifsud was suffering in a disproportionate and excessive manner as a result of the expropriation.
The court pointed out that the law enabled the authorities to expropriate land in three manners, namely by outright purchase, by title of possession and use, and by title of public dominium. In the latter two instances, instead of paying the owner a sum equivalent to the property's value, the authorities were empowered to pay an annual sum by way of compensation.
Once the property had been expropriated from Ms Mifsud to be demolished and for the purposes of constructing a housing estate and roads, then the court ruled that the expropriation ought to have been carried out by outright purchase.
The court, therefore, concluded that Ms Mifsud's right to adequate compensation had been violated and ordered the authorities to pay her €25,000 in compensation.