Curepe farmers take NHA to court

EIGHT Curepe farmers were yesterday granted leave to apply for judicial review of the decision by the National Housing Authority (NHA) dated May 2 to enter and take possession of  agricultural lands at Ramgoolie Trace, Curepe. Madame Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee granted the leave to the farmers after hearing submissions on an ex-parte application by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC. However, the judge refused to grant an interim order to stay the decision of the NHA. The affected farmers named were Garvin Thomas, Trevor Le Gendre, Ali Buckreedam, Nizamodden Ali, Elico Goolsair, Razack Mohammed, Mayhew Charles, and Nezamel Goolrir. The eight farmers claimed they have been in occupation of the lands known as St Joseph Farm for continuous periods of time ranging from ten to 15 years. The farmers contend that the State knew that at least 20 persons farmed lands at Curepe. There was correspondence between some farmers and the State with a view to regularising their occupation.

The Cabinet of the UNC Government decided on February 25, 1999 that occupation of State lands by persons such as the applicants would be regularised by the grant of agricultural leases. On April 22, 2003, officials of the NHA entered upon the Curepe lands and attempted forcibly to take possession, but were prevented from so doing by the farmers. On May 2, the NHA officials entered and took possession of the lands through the use of bulldozers and other mechanical equipment which destroyed the crops and the buildings. The NHA plans to commence the construction of a low-cost housing project on the land. The farmers pointed out that the controversial parcel of land owned by the State falls within the St Joseph constituency, a marginal constituency which was lost by the PNM Government in the last General Election. Maharaj, in his submissions, told the court that his clients were never given an opportunity to make representations to the NHA or the State. A meeting arranged for April 25 between the farmers and the NHA was aborted when the NHA failed to attend. Maharaj, who appeared with Rikki Harnanan and Darrel Allahar,  argued that no application had been made by the State to recover possession of the lands, nor have the farmers been paid compensation for their crops.

Maharaj said his clients have attempted a resolution of the matter through discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, but without success. Senior Counsel said by virtue of the 1999 Cabinet decision, his clients had a legitimate expectation that they would have been granted leases, and that procedural fairness required that they should have been heard. Maharaj said the farmers were also denied the legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit — payment of sums of money in respect of the value of buildings and crops on the lands. He argued that the NHA had to get an order of the court to take possession of the land. “The court has to intervene; the NHA cannot just go and take possession of the land,” he argued. Maharaj said there was merit on the issues raised and felt there was need for a judicial investigation.