The Constitutional Court has ruled that the expropriation of farming land for the construction of a road was not in violation of the farmers’ fundamental human rights.
Paul, Giljan and John Farrugia filed a constitutional application against the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Land.
The three brothers told the court that they farmed eight tumoli of land (roughly 8,800 square metres) in St Julians and San Ġwann and that they were full-time farmers producing three crops a year and raising dairy cattle. Their entire livelihood depended on farming.
In 1998 the Commissioner of Land had issued a notice expropriating an area of this farmland in order for it to be allocated to a private company, MS & A Developments Ltd.
The farmers told the court that this expropriation was in violation of their fundamental human rights to property and that they were being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
The First Hall of the Civil Court had dismissed the farmers’ claims and had ruled that the expropriation had taken place in the public interest.
The court also ruled that the Attorney General ought not to have been a party to the litigation.
In its judgment the first court examined what the purpose of the expropriation was and whether it was intended to benefit a private company.
It resulted that the land had been intended for use as a public road. The company had requested the expropriation of the land as it constituted the only access to the company’s property.
A representative of the Roads Department had explained that when a person developed property, he was bound to create the access road. When such person was unable to do so, there existed a procedure whereby the Commissioner of Land could expropriate land to be used as a public road. In such a case the expropriated land would devolve upon the government while the person requesting the expropriation had to pay the compensation due.
Expropriation of property was justifiable when land was required for a public purpose. In this case the expropriation had taken place in a legal manner and in the public interest for the land had been designated as an area for a public road since 1998.
The farmers then appealed to the Constitutional Court comprised of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.
On appeal the court pointed out that the fact that the development of the road was to be carried out by a private company did not diminish the public interest of the project. This was confirmed by previous judgments of the local courts and of the European Court.
The public interest was linked to the final purpose to which the expropriated land would be used. The construction of a road benefitted the owners of adjacent properties but it was obvious that the government was responsible for town planning in the public interest.
The Constitutional Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the first judgment.