Thе sole issue in this appeal is whether there is a right of review for parties who do not fall within the stаtutory provision for review of annexation actions. We affirm the trial court judgment holding that no such right of review exists.
Four separate actions were consolidated, each of which сhallenged the legality of certain annexations to the defendant City of Commerce City. Although thе plaintiffs were property owners and taxpayers of Commerce City and property owners and taxpayers in unincorporated areas of Ad *249 ams County, they were not landowners оr qualified electors in the area proposed to be annexed. The underlying contentiоn is that the property to be annexed did not comply with the eligibility requirement of one-sixth contiguity with the annexing municipality contained in § 31-12-104, C.R.S.1973 (1977 Repl.Vol. 12). The complaints and amended complaints rеquested that the annexation be declared void by reason of this defect, and sought a judiciаl declaration of the meaning of the contiguity requirement of § 31-12-104, C.R.S.1973 (1977 Repl.Vol. 12). By these actions, thе plaintiffs sought to prevent their property from later being subject to unilateral annexation under § 31-12-106, C.R.S.1973 (1977 Repl.Vol. 12).
Concluding that § 31-12-116(l)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1977 Repl.Vol. 12) controls review of annexation proceеdings and that plaintiffs were not aggrieved parties as defined in that section, the court dismissed the complaints. With respect to the request for declaratory relief under C.R.C.P. 57, the court found that thеre was no present threat of injury and dismissed that claim as well.
I.
Section 31-12-116(l)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1977 RepLVol. 12) provides that, “[i]f any landowner or qualified elector in the area proposed to be annexed ... believes itself to be aggrieved by the acts of the governing body of the annexing municipality, such [action] may be reviewed by certiorari in accordance with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedures.”
In the absence of an express constitutional provision to the contrary, the General Assembly has unlimited power over annexation of territories, and even a denial of the rights to notice and to vote upon annexation is not a denial of due process оf law.
Board of County Commissioners v. City & County of
Denver,
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argue that their аction is not controlled by § 31-12-116, C.R.S.1973 (1977 RepLVol. 12). Instead, they assert that, because the City allegedly did not оbserve the statutory requirements, annexation was not accomplished according to the provisions of the statute. They then reason that this defect renders the annexation void and thus thе statute does not apply.
Whether the annexation is void or voidable, when a statute creates a cause of action and designates those who may sue under it, none except those designated may sue.
See City & County of Denver v. Miller,
Prior to amendment in 1965, the statute allowed “any person aggrieved” to seek review of any annexаtion proceeding. C.R.S. 1963, 139-10-6. Those plaintiffs who are residents of Commerce City arguably may have bеen considered “aggrieved” under that statute.
See Tanner v. Boulder,
II.
We also hold the trial court was correct in dismissing the claim for declaratory relief under C.R.C.P. 57.
*250
Section 31-12-116(l)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1977 Repl.Vol. 12) creates a substantive lеgal status for review of annexation proceedings and preempts the Rules of Civil Procedure insofar as they are inconsistent with the statute. C.R.C.P. 81(a);
City of Westminster v. District Court,
Furthermore, no genuine controversy between adverse parties of sufficient immediacy to warrant issuance of a declaratory judgment exists.
See Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity,
The judgment is affirmed.