Squatters withdraw land case

HOUSEWIFE Ashminee Joseph and her daughter-in-law Annesa Maharaj – both squatters – have withdrawn their constitutional claim against the state.

At the second day of their trial in the Port of Spain High Court yesterday, their attorney Gerald Ramdeen informed Justice Frank Seepersad of the women’s decision to discontinue their challenge.

An order agreeing to this was signed off by the judge who made no order for costs since the Attorney General opted not to pursue any.

The two claimed they had occupied the lands at Pine Avenue, Valencia for more than 30 years.

On May 15 last year, Maharaj’s home and others were demolished by a crew of police and soldiers. Joseph’s home was not touched during the demolition exercise.

The women were successful in obtaining a conservatory order restraining the Commissioner of State Lands from demolishing any more houses occupied by squatters at Pine Avenue. This was yesterday withdrawn with the withdrawal of the case. They claimed their rights to enjoyment of property and protection by law were infringed, as they contend the State Suits Limitation Ordinance protects them from attempts by the State to repossess state lands once they have been living on the property for 30 years.

They also contended that they have expressed intention to possess the lands as their own, as prescribed for in the Ordinance.

After ratifying the consent order, Seepersad commended both sides for the position taken, especially in light of the inconsistent evidence of the women.

He said the court, based on the evidence, had formed the view that while the women were not engaged in land grabbing, they may have operated under a misapprehension of the law. He said the use and illegal occupation of state lands was an issue which had to be addressed.

“There can be no entitlement to occupy lands belonging to the State and illegal occupation can impose severe restrictions on the State’s ability to engage in developmental projects.

“While the need for an accommodation cannot be dismissed, there needs to be a shift in the expectation of citizens and feelings of entitlement need to displaced and replaced by attitudes of self-empowerment.”

He said people, who because of desperation or circumstance, are forced to illegally occupy state lands, do so at their own risk and the state’s mercy “unless they are fortunate enough” to remain there and establish possession for 30 years.

“Ultimately the state has an overriding responsibility to protect its assets and cannot be faulted for the strict enforcement of its legal rights, however in doing so, and whenever the remedy of self-help is implemented, such implementation should factor in humanitarian concerns and the approach adopted should always be characterised by fairness and justice.”

Joseph testified on Wednesday she and her late husband Selwyn bought the land in 1983. Maharaj said the land was gifted to her by Joseph.

Joseph admitted she had no surveyor’s plan of the acreage of land she claimed ownership to, nor did she have photographs to show the entire parcel. She also did not provide water or electricity bills as evidence to support her case; neither could Maharaj.

Attorneys Terence Bharath and Tamara Toolsie represented the AG.