A group of West Bank Berbice cattle farmers have moved to court to challenge a decision made by the Mahaica, Mahaicony, Abary-Agricultural Development Authority (MMA-ADA) to evict them from land they have been occupying for over 20 years and allocate various portions to other persons.
A fixed-date application, filed on behalf of Pooran Balmukund, Moonessar Somaroo, Rajnarine Harrynarine, Chrisna Sookdeo, Amar Nauth, Khrisinchand David and Subramannie Madray, says the farmers were never given leases for the approximately 1,360 acres of land, situated at Ramroop, Blairmont, despite applying several times.
The farmers are listed as the applicants, while MMA-ADA is the respondent.
The farmers are seeking from the court: a Declaration that they are entitled to leases, licences and/or permission to occupy the land in question; an Order or Writ of Certiorari quashing any decision made by the respondent granting leases, licences or permission to occupy to any third party; an Order or Writ of Certiorari quashing any lease, licence or permission to occupy to any third party; an Order or Writ of Certiorari quashing any decision to allocate or the allocation of a portion of any of the land to a third party; an Order of Mandamus compelling the respondent to process the applicants’ applications for a lease and/or licence in accordance with law for State Land; an injunction restraining the respondent from processing, allocating or issuing any Lease, licence and/or permission to occupy in respect of and in connection with the land; and an injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any manner interfering with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment and occupation of the land.
The matter, which was filed last Friday, is fixed for hearing before the Chief Justice at 10.30 am on June 13th. A team of lawyers headed by former Attorney General Anil Nandlall is representing the farmers.
It is being argued that the applicants have for over 20 years been in communal possession, occupation and control of the land, upon which they graze, pasture and accommodate approximately 650 heads of cattle.
It was explained that shortly after entering into possession, they spent huge sums of money to fence a large portion of the land and over the years they continued to spend millions of dollars in up-keeping the land and to keep same properly drained and irrigated.
Over the years, the farmers say they have also spent millions of dollars in the erection of buildings and structures to house their cattle and also constructed a dwelling house in which they dwell while they are on the said land. The structures are still there and are being maintained and upkept by the applicants.
Further, the applicants say that cattle rearing and the selling of milk produced is their only source of income and that they are the sole breadwinners for their families.
“Over the two (2) decades that they have been in occupation of the said lands, the Applicants were never interfered with nor were their occupation ever interrupted by the Respondent or anyone else,” the application states.
It explains that during the year 2011, a number of rice farmers attempted to enter portions of the land for the purpose of cultivating rice and this led to a dispute given the fact that rice cultivation would immeasurably affected the applicants use of the land for rearing and grazing their cattle.
Then Minister of Agriculture Robert Persaud and the then President Donald Ramotar intervened and after a series of engagements among the farmers, the Minister of Agriculture and officers of the Respondent, it was decided that the said lands would continue to be used “exclusively” for cattle rearing and that the applicants’ occupation would be formalised and regularised.
According to the farmers, they were invited by the MMA-ADA to several meetings to discuss regularisation of their occupation of the land and it informed them that while a decision was made to grant leases, the issue for contention was the manner in which the leases should be issued because the land was communally occupied.
“The controversial issue was in whose name the lease(s) was or were to be issued,” they said, before adding that a decision was taken that the applicants were to form themselves in a co-operative society in accordance with the Co-operative Societies Act and that a lease would have been issued in the name of the said co-operative society.
Several community meetings were held by officers of the respondent, including Aubrey Charles, the current MMA-ADA General Manager and the then Chairman of the MMA-ADA Ruduloph Gajraj, with the applicants.
During this period, Charles issued a memorandum in which he stated that the president had given approval for the land to be used for cattle grazing purposes.
According to the farmers, during this period of time they were further promised by officers and/or agents of the MMA-ADA that a lease would eventually be granted to them for the land.
Consequently, they remained in possession and occupation of the said land and spent huge sums of money in developing and up-keeping the land based upon their reliance to the said promise.
They, however, never completed the process of forming themselves into a co-operative society and as a result they were invited by the respondent to submit individual applications for leases for the said land and they were promised that the leases will make provision for communal occupation.
“Over the years, the Applicants made enquiries about the status of their applications and invariably, they were informed by the Respondent that there were no applications in the system for them,” the application states, while adding that as a result applications were filed almost annually thereafter.
On the 18th of January, 2018, the MMA-ADA wrote to the applicants informing them that their permission to occupy the said lands was rescinded and that they were required to deliver vacant possession of the said land to the respondent by the 18th of February, 2019.
The applicants argue that they were not informed by anyone that the respondent was considering rescinding their permission to occupy nor were they given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was taken.
Notwithstanding this, the applicants continued to apply for leases for the said lands and the Respondent accepted the applicants’ applications and their filing fees.
On the 11th of January, 2019, at page 11 of the Kaieteur News Newspaper, the respondent published a notice under the caption “Public Notice” the informed that “…all Permissions given under Section 7 of the State Lands Act to occupy State Lands at Gold Digging, Blairmont, West Bank Berbice area prior to October, 2018 are rescinded with effect from the 25th January, 2019.”
Balmukund, in an affidavit which forms part of the application, notes that on the 14th of May, 2019, the respondent by way of letter informed them that their occupation of the land is illegal and that they must dismantle all erections made thereon and vacate the land.
“To date, the other Applicants and I have not been informed whether our applications were granted or refused and if refused, why our applications were refused,” he says before stressing that they were not given a hearing before the cancellation, revocation and/or recession of their permission to occupy the said lands by the respondent.
“I am advised by our Attorneys-at-Law and do verily believe that our legitimate expectation to be issued with a lease and/or licence for the said lands has been breached by the Respondent. I have been informed by officers and/or agents of the Respondent and do verily believe that a decision was taken to [allocate] various portions of the said lands to individuals who have never occupied the said lands and have no connection whatsoever to the said lands and these persons are not from the same locality and most significantly, none of these persons have more than a dozen cattle,” he argues.
