Roads authority’s expropriation of land ‘made in interest of private parties’

A civil court has reversed the government’s expropriation of land in St Paul’s Bay, declaring it as having been done to appease private interests and not that of the public.

The case, filed by 18 individuals, A.M. Developments and Polidano Group Limited against the Lands Authority and the Attorney General, was filed in November 2007.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Attard Montalto asked for judicial review after the Government Gazette announced the expropriation of 442sq.m of land part of a larger plot of 18,000sq.m at an area known as Ta’ Bibu or Ta’ Ghar Ghasfur in St Paul’s Bay.

The plaintiffs, who owned the land argued that it had been taken from them to satisfy third parties, under the guise of being needed in the public interest.

They had applied for a warrant of prohibitory injunction against SIAR Property Investment Ltd, owned by hotelier Silvio Debono and Arthur Gauci, in July 2005 to stop it from excavating or building on the land. However, despite the warrant being issued, SIAR had carried on with the works.

Also in 2005, Malta’s transport authority at the time, the ADT, had asked for planning permission to change development boundaries in Triq it-Tonn, St Paul’s Bay, to allow a larger turning circle for road vehicles. This request had been turned down because it would affect scheduled buildings and third-party properties, needlessly.

But the next year, the ADT had made a similar request once again, this time also asking for the expropriation of 438sq.m of land in the area. In 2007, 442sq.m of land in the area was expropriated for a public purpose.

The plaintiffs filed the case that same year, arguing that it was not true that the land was taken for a public purpose, because the turning circle area required by the ADT already existed before the expropriation. They claimed that the ADT had asked for the change in development boundaries in bad faith.

Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, in his decision on the matter, observed that the State enjoyed a wide discretion on what constituted the public interest. But the manner in which this discretion was implemented, must show balance between the interests of society and that of the individual being negatively affected.

The court said that had it been the case that a wider turning circle was, in fact, required, this would have been a case of legitimate public interest, but from the plans provided, the additional land was, in fact, going to be used for paving and planting trees to shield a wall from view.
In fact, after the deduction of the space required for paving and tree planting, there was little to no enlargement of the road surface, noted the
court.

“The court finds it very difficult to accept that there was really a public need or purpose for the taking of this stretch of land,” said the judge.

“To the contrary… no evidence was produced to rebut the court’s understanding that the land was only taken to lessen the aesthetic impact…”

The defendant authority did not prove to the satisfaction of the court that the private property had been taken for a purpose useful to the public. “The wide discretion of the State in deciding what was in the public interest had not been shown to balance the interests of society and those of the affected individuals.”

The court declared that the administrative decision was abusive of its powers and declared the expropriation null. It also ordered that the plaintiffs’ land be returned to their original state before the declaration relating to the expropriation and to reverse the expropriation.