Rice farmer challenges MMA-ADA land reallocation

Nov 29, 2009 News

---

– accuses Authority of fraud

A dispute over rice land had led to Justice Diana Insanally granting an order directed at the Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud for him to show cause for a decision to take away 60 percent of a plot of land from a rice farmer and give it to another.
The plot of land in dispute is situated at No.38-SC Tempie-Area 3-MMA Project Area, West Coast Berbice.
The matter was filed by attorney at law Basil Williams on behalf of rice farmer Rawlstown Cambridge.
The Minister, who is the Chairman of the Mahaica-Mahaicony Abary Agricultural Development Authority (MMA-ADA), had ordered Cambridge to give the land over to another rice farmer, who had previously occupied it but had defaulted in his payment of rent.
Cambridge’s contention is that he had paid off a significant amount which was owed by the previous allottee on the land, and he had spent a large additional sum to develop the land, which he occupies under ‘Permission to Occupy’ and which he is cultivating at the present time.
He believes that a fraud has been committed since he was induced to pay off the previous allottee’s debt to the Authority with the intention at the time to return it to the previous allotee at a later date. Under section 2 of the MMA-ADA (amendment) Act No.4 of 1998, the Minister of Agriculture shall be the Chairman of the Authority, where no Chairman is appointed by him.
In an affidavit in support of his position, Cambridge said that he has been a rice farmer on the West Coast of Berbice since 1994.
On June 19 last year, he was granted ‘Permission to Occupy’ in writing and commenced work on plot No 38 situated at SC58 Tempie –Area3-MMA Project Area, West Coast Berbice for a period of one year with an option of renewal by the MMA-ADA.
Under the agreement, Cambridge was mandated to pay land rent and drainage and irrigation charges.
According to the affidavit, the Authority notified him that he had to pay a sum of $400,000 which was the amount owed by the previous allottee, before he could be allocated the said plot of land.
That same day, Cambridge paid the money to the Authority and was allotted the land, 23.47 acres, under the said ‘Permission to Occupy’.
Cambridge in his affidavit stated that the land was in a bad state and heavily forested when he took possession of it.
He said that he immediately went to clear and prepare the land for the autumn crop which runs from June to October 2008.
However, due to the dense bush on the land, he only managed to clear and plant 15 acres, incurring costs in excess of $621,500.
“…from the time I entered upon the said plot 38, (name given) began to threaten that he would kill me if I did not get off the land,” Cambridge stated in his affidavit.
He only managed to reap 13 bags of paddy from last year’s autumn crop largely because of sabotage wherein water was drained from the cultivation overnight whenever he filled it.
Cambridge subsequently prepared the plot for the spring crop which ran from October last year to April this year, this time 23 acres.
The expenses of preparing and sowing the said land and the cost of reaping 200 bags of paddy for the spring crop were in excess of $1.03M.
He alleged that again the crop was interfered with when the previous allottee set around 200 head of cattle on to the paddy cultivation.
“I began preparing the said plot…for the spring crop of October 2009 to April 2010 and had spent around $138,000 when I was informed that the Minister of Agriculture Mr. Robert Persaud said that the said plot of land must be given back to the said (name given),” Cambridge’s affidavit stated.
A letter from the MMA-ADA to Cambridge dated October 29 2009 and signed by General Manager, A. Charles, indicated that, “you confirmed that you did not cultivate the plot for the autumn crop and we suggested to you, in light of the decision made by the minister, that perhaps we can see if any other plot becomes available for allocation.”
But Cambridge is contending that at no time was he given a hearing or an opportunity to be heard by the Authority before it made its decision to substantially repossess 60 percent of the land in order to give it back to the previous allotee.
“…I am further advised…and verily believe that a fraud has been perpetrated on me by the authority, which has induced me to pay off …a debt and return it to (previous allottee) after the year had expired under the permission to occupy,” Cambridge contended.
He added that after he had paid a large sum of money, it was unreasonable and in breach of his legitimate expectation for the Authority not to renew the said ‘permission to occupy’.
Upon reading the application by way of motion, Justice Insanally issued an order for the Minister to show cause why his decision should not be quashed on the ground of breach of the rules of natural justice, unreasonableness, discrimination, prejudice and a breach of Cambridge’s legitimate expectation that the said permission to occupy would be renewed.
The Minister is also being called upon to show cause why he should not be prohibited from returning 60 percent of the land in question to the previous allottee.
The Agriculture Minister has until December 4 to file an affidavit in answer, failing which judgement could be granted against his decision.
The matter was adjourned to December 14 in bail court.

---

---