ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Hearings — Interested party’s right to be heard before final order of Replanning Commission — Town Replanning Ordinance 1950,.s.13

LAND LAW — Replanning  Commission — Power: limited to assessment of compensation

— Town Replanninig  Ordinance 1950, s,.18 and  19,.

In a final order. the Replanning Commission for Shendi Town denied compensation to appellant, registered owner of part of a plot taken over by the Commission. on the ground that it had accepted the testimony at the preliminary hearing of the other owners that they had purchsed appellant’s share. Appellant was absent from the preliminary hearing, and was denied the opportunity to testify at the final hearing. On appeal to the Province Court.

Held: (I) Appellant was wrongfully denied a hearing before final order, even though she was absent from the preliminary hearing

(ii) The Commission has no authority under the Town Repanning Ordinance  1950 to settle disputes over ownership, as its authority is limited to assessment of compensation due to interested persons under Town Replanning Ordinance, ss.18 ans 19

Osman El Tayeb, P.)., 1956:— This is an appeal under Town Re- planning Ordinance 1950, s.22 from an order of the Commission  deemed to have been made under section 19 of the Ordinance. The order dated April 16, 1953 is as follows:

“Plot No. 38, Block 8, Shendi town, registered thus:

N a m e                                                                                  area in square metres

1. Sit El Nafar Ahmed Salim                                                    170
2. Aman Ali Ahmed Salim                                                    170
3. . Salim Babiker El Sheikh Salim                                            85
4. . Fatma Babiker El Sheikh Salim                                             42½
5.  Sit El Banat Mohamed Kheir,..                                             42½
6.  Amna Osman Eisa                                                                         88
7.  Khalid Osman El Sheikh Sali                                                  99
8. Hamad Osman El Sheikh Salim                                             99
9.  Babiker Osman El Sheikh Salim                                                99
10. El Zein Osman El Sheikh Salim                                    99
11. Fatma Osman El Sheikh Salim                                        50
12. Mariam Osman El Sheikh Salim                                        49
13. Aisha Osman El Sheikh Salim                                        49
14. Sit El Banat Osman El Sheikh Salim                                        49

1191

            This plot is to be removed and converted into a public square, and the owners are to be compensated in land by new plots Nos. 38, 38(1) and 40, Block 8, of areas 594, 594 and 629 square metres, respectively. They gained an area of 680 square metres valued at £S. 20.400m/ms. The value of buildings in the old plot is assessed at £S. 48.500m/ms;therefore the balance due to owners is £S.48.l00m/ms.”

On September 22, 1954 the Replanning Officer made the following order for registration:

            That the three new plots shall be awarded and registered in the names of Heirs of Osman El Sheikh Salim (who are the registered owners from No. 6 up to No. 14 above). It is further ordered that the monetary compensation be given to them.”

The money was paid and the order for registration was made as recently as August 18, 1956.

it is clear that the final order of the Commission has excluded the registered co-owners from No.1 up to No.5. The appellant is one of the excluded persons and she is a registered owner as to 170 square metres in the old plot. There was no award of compensation for the appellant, and against this she is appealing

The reasons of the Commission are twofold:

(a)       that the registered owners other than heirs of Sheikh Osman Salim failed to appear before the Commission, and

(b)       that heirs of Osman El Sheikh Salim satisfied the Replanning Officer that they had purchased the shares of’ the other regIstered owners.

As to (a), it is true that appellant did not appear before the Commission in 1953 when it made its first order, which can be considered to be a preliminary order, in which it did no more than substitute the old plot No. 38 by three other plots as compensation to the owners of that plot generally. But the final order, in which appellant and others were deprived of their rights, was made where appellant was represented. In this case, as appel. lant happened to have been present before the final order was made, it seems to me she ought to have been heard and her argument ought to have been considered, and failure to do this appears to be contrary to natural justice.

As to (b), the Commission, by accepting the allegation of the heirs of Osman El Sheikh Salim as to a sale of the appellant, acted without jurisdiction. There is nothing in the Ordinance which empowers the Commission to hear and settle disputes between interested persons. Th Commission must take the share of any registered owner as t is and make a specific ordec about it, to the best interests of the replaniiing, layout and any other in in the scheme under the provisions and powers given to itby Town Replanning Ordinance 1950, s. 18. After doing this the Commission shall assess the compensation due to any interested person.

The Commission has thus deprived the appellant of her right  as an interested person. For these reasons I order as follows

1.The order of the Commission dated September 22, 1954 that plots Nos. 38, 38(1) and 40, Block 8, Shendi District, comprising 594, 594 and 629 square meters, respectively, and money compensation be awaided to the heirs of Osman El Sheikh Salim, is hereby set aside.

2. It is further ordered that the Assistant Registrar of Lands, Shendi, will cancel the registration effected in accordance with the order of the Commission stated in Order (1) above.

3. It is further ordered that the Commission will reinvestigate and make the appropriate order according to law as to the compensation to be awarded to appellant, whether in land or in money