1. Skip to Menu
  2. Skip to Content
  3. Skip to Footer>
Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Place Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here Your ad here

No obligation to expropriate (Civil Court, First Hall)

PDF Print E-mail

Written by Ivan Mifsud Saturday, 19 February 2011 05:32 Last Updated on Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:02

11 February 2011, Valletta (Ref: 1486/2011/1). The First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed an action brought by a private developer, seeking compensation for land he considered the government to have expropriated. The land in question in fact was the part of the road that the developer was obliged by law to form, in front of the property he built.

According to the developer, the land taken up by the road, which was open to the public, should be formally expropriated by the State under the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Ordinance (Chapter 88 of the Laws of Malta); compensation should also be paid.

 The defence on the other hand claimed that the developer had built in a planning scheme and followed the applicable legislation, which include that the authorities determined the boundary of the property leaving space for formation of the road in front of the same property. Roads need to be opened when new developments are constructed, and the developer must contribute to this, in accordance with the laws of the country. The Government never claimed ownership of the road, indeed it did not need to at all. The developer was simply abiding by planning and other legislation.

The Court accepted the defendant's argument that the developer had to abide by planning schemes and build according to official alignments even if this meant giving up part of one's property for road formation. ther Court also accepted that the fact that the road could be used by the general public did not render it public. Nor did the fact that the Government carried out some works on the same road.

The Court quoted Sammut v. ICA Carmelo Micallef nomine (Appeal, 21.03.1958); on that occasion the Court of Appeal held that 1. that road had been used by the general public for over sixty years; 2. the government had maintained it and even passed drainage and other services through it. Yet it could not be presumed that the road was rendered public.

To access the judgement (only available in Maltese) click here

 

 

Newsflash

The StateCareAndMore web site can be your next platform to reach your clients, ask our staff for available options on how you can place an advert on our web site.