|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V7) 1 CLR 15
1905 December 18
[HUTCHINSON, C.J. AND TYSER, J.]
KING'S ADVOCATE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOLOMO LOIZO AND ANASTASIA SOLOMO,
Defendants.
LAND CODE, ART.31-ARAZI MIRIE-PERMISSION TO BUILD-ADDITION TO BUILDINGS.
Where the mutassarif of Arazi Mirie has obtained permission to build and has erected the buildings for the erection of which leave was given, he cannot add to those buildings without obtaining a fresh permission.
This was an appeal of the Plaintiff from the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia.
The facts were as follows:-
In 1898, the Defendant Solomo Loizo, being registered owner of Arazi Mirie, obtained a permit from the Commissioner of Nicosia to erect two rooms and a veranda on the land, and erected them.
Solomo afterwards sold part of this property to the Defendant Anastasia, who was his daughter. Anastasia obtained registration of her part, and in her qochan it was described as a "house and yard" and the quantity was stated to be one room and a veranda.
This qochan was in English on one side and in Greek on the other; on the English side, which was signed by the officials of the Land Registry Office, the land was said to be Arazi-Mirié, and on the Greek side, which was unsigned, it was said to be Mulk.
After she had obtained her qochan the Defendants proceeded to build on Anastasia's land without obtaining any permit from the Government.
The claim in the present action was for an order upon the Defendants to remove the new building erected without leave, the Plaintiff alleging that its erection was in contravention of Art. 31 of the Land Code.
The District Court dismissed the action.
G. G. Amirayan for the Appellant.
A.K. Artemis for the Respondent Anastasia, argued:
That the land was described as mulk in the qochan and that the Defendants were entitled to build; that the ground built on was the yard of the house and therefore mulk; that if a person obtains permission to build on Arazi-Mirié, and builds accordingly, he may afterwards put up other buildings on it without fresh permission.
Judgment: No application has been made to amend Anastasia's qochan; and there is no evidence from which we can gather that the description of the ground in her qochan as Arazi-Mirié is a clerical error. It is necessary therefore to hold that her ground is Arazi-Mirié; and following the decisions of this Court in other cases, (see King's Advocate v. Pieri Petrides heirs, C.L.R. vi., 94, 96,) we must decide that she cannot build on it without permission from the Government. That permission she has not obtained.
There is plenty of evidence that the other Defendant has taken part and assisted Anastasia in the erection of the new building.
The judgment appealed from must therefore be set aside and an order made restraining the Defendants from building on the property mentioned in the registration of the Defendant Anastasia, No. 2003 and dated the 30th November, 1904, and restraining the Defendant Anastasia from permitting any building to remain erected within the boundaries mentioned in her said registration other than the buildings for the erection of which she has obtained a permit from the Government.
Defendants to pay costs in both Courts.
Appeal allowed.