Judge stops mandir lawsuit

A SAN FERNANDO High Court judge yesterday stopped what she feared could turn into a “holy war” between devotees of a Hindu mandir and a follower of the Presbyterian faith, in a land dispute in South Trinidad. Madame Justice Amrika Tiwary-Reddy, presiding in the San Fernando High Court, expressed concern about a possible “religious war” being ventilated in court for “three feet of land.” She stopped the case and ordered the trustees of Treveni Hindu Temple of Hardbargain, Williamsville, to mend their differences with their neighbour, Arnold Saintlal Sampath, over construction of a large dome on the temple. Sampath challenged the construction as an encroachment on his land. In December, Sampath obtained leave for judicial review of the Princes Town Regional Corporation’s (PTRC) failure to stop mandir trustees from constructing the dome.

Sampath, who lives on five acres of land adjoining the mandir, claimed the dome was within three feet of his boundary. He reported the matter to the PTRC which issued a notice dated November 22, 2001, for the mandir’s owners/trustees to show cause why the dome should not be removed, altered or pulled down. Sampath said in his lawsuit he intends to construct a preschool and feared that water from the roof of the temple would fall onto his land and cause a drainage problem. The mandir’s trustees filed an application to set aside the ex-parte leave granted to Sampath by Justice Nolan Bereaux. Hearing came up yesterday before Madame Justice Tiwary-Reddy. Ronnie Bissessar represented Sampath, while Anand Ramlogan appeared for the mandir’s trustees.

But midway into legal arguments from both sides, Madame Justice Tiwary-Reddy asked  “Where are we going with this... for three feet of land? How is the public affected? This is land nobody lives on,” she pointed out. Ramlogan accused Sampath of delaying in taking steps to correct the purported wrong, but Madame Justice Tiwary-Reddy responded: “But the temple has to realise that it cannot go along taking people’s property. The temple cannot feel it is mighty right, it could be 100 people or 500 people (devotees).” Madame Justice Tiwary-Reddy said she herself came from a Hindu background. A temple was not only about eating “karhi” and “parsad,” the judge announced in open court when Ramlogan interrupted by accusing Sampath of only seeking to stop the construction long after it was in fully swing and “long after devotees had started eating karhi and parsad.”

Madame Justice Tiwary-Reddy asked: “Is this a religious war? What we have here, is it a jihad?” She urged both parties to discuss and settle the matter and warned them that if they decided to pursue the case, one of them would be condemned in legal costs. Following a break and after discussions, it was agreed by consent that Sampath would withdraw the lawsuit and will not request cost. The  trustees agreed that they would apologise to Sampath for any distress caused to him. A draft  of the apology, though it did not form part of the court’s order, was read to the judge.