Couple withdraw claim to 14 acres of Airport Authority land

A farmer and his wife have withdrawn their claim, mid-trial, against the Airports Authority (AATT) for 14 acres of land that form the Piarco International Airport Estate.

Mitchell and Vidya Sankar sought compensation for alleged trespass by the AATT on land on which they had planted coconuts and pumpkin over the years.

The couple were also seeking an injunction to prevent the AATT from entering the land surrounding the Piarco International Airport or removing them from it, as well as declarations they were entitled to possession because of their “exclusive control” of the land for close to two decades.

The trial of the couple’s lawsuit began on November 4, before Justice Frank Seepersad.

However, after the Sankars’ expert witness – Dr Dexter Davis, a geomatic consultant with L&S Surveying Services Ltd – and Mitchell Sankar gave evidence, the judge was told the couple was withdrawing their claim and the AATT was giving them possession to reap whatever crops they had on the land over the next six months.

Seepersad congratulated both sides on the move, having regard to the evidence.

He told the Sankars’ attorney Gerald Ramdeen and the AATT’s attorney, Ian Benjamin, SC, as ministers of justice, they did the right thing and also saved a day and a half of trial time.

Seepersad said it was rare that the “right thing is done.”

He made no orders for either side to pay costs.

In their lawsuit, the couple said they established “exclusive possession and control” of the AATT’s lands by August 2004.

However, around the same time, the AATT, as the paper title-owner of the Piarco International Airport Estate, brought an action for recovery of possession of the 14 acres.

The couple’s lawsuit admitted their initial entry onto the 14 acres was without the AATT’s consent, but said they began making use of it since the authority did not object. Mitchell moved onto the land in 2002 to establish himself as a farmer, and after they married in 2004, Vidya joined her husband.

They also contended by August 2020, under provisions of the Real Property Limitation Act, the AATT’s title would have been extinguished because of their “exclusive, undisturbed possession and control” of the 14 acres from August 2004-August 2020.

To substantiate their claim, they said each year for the 18 years, they cleared, cleaned and irrigated the lands, planted crops, erected bamboo barriers to prevent anyone from entering the land, and maintained the riverbank.

They also said farmers on surrounding land recognised them as the occupiers of the land.

They also said they had more than ten families working for them, but had been unable to pay them since 2021, when the AATT served them with a notice to vacate in six months.

They admitted ignoring the AATT’s “no trespassing” signs on the estate.

They said because of AATT’s actions, they suffered losses they could not quantify.

The AATT denied the couple had acquired title because of their adverse possession of the 14 acres, which was part of 332 hectares that former president Noor Hassanali vested in the authority around late 1989.

The AATT contended the couple’s claim of undisturbed occupation was contradicted by Sankar’s own admission that he knew the lands were not his, but belonged to the authority. The AATT also contended that Mrs Sankar’s claim to “undisturbed possession” was a complete and absolute falsehood, as she never "occupied” the land, so could not claim adverse possession.

The AATT also said it became aware of Sankar’s occupation around 2008, but noted he always acknowledged the authority’s title at meetings with its agents up to April 2021.

It also said its security personnel have periodically done on-site assessments and met with farmers to deter illegal occupation.

In response to the couple's claims, the AATT said it rejected a proposal by the farmers, including Sankar, for the grant of leases since the lands were close to the airport and in 2007,the Cabinet had identified and approved the estate for future airport expansion.

The AATT maintained the Sankars could not have exclusive physical control of the 14 acres, or any part, for the statutorily required period for adverse possession.

It also said it was prepared to defend its title to the land.