Court dismisses landowner’s $13m claim against Petrotrin, Heritage over pipeline rents

The High Court has dismissed a $13 million claim by a landowner who sought compensation from the Petroleum Company of TT Ltd (Petrotrin) and Heritage Petroleum Company Ltd for unpaid rents on land used for oil pipelines.

Justice Westmin James ruled on December 18 that Shivanand Seenath’s claim was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitation Act, which extinguishes rights to claim rents after a 16-year period of non-payment.

Seenath owns two parcels of land in Esperance Estate, Fyzabad, which host 14-inch and ten-inch pipelines operated by the state companies. He sought $10.9 million from Petrotrin for unpaid rents from 1991-2018 and $2.4 million from Heritage for the period 2019-2021.

According to Seenath, rent payments ceased in 1991 despite an oral agreement between the prior landowner and British Petroleum (BP), Petrotrin and Heritage’s predecessor. Attempts to negotiate settlements with Petrotrin and Heritage failed, prompting Seenath to commission valuation reports and initiate legal action.

In defence of the claim, Petrotrin and Heritage contended that the strip of land hosting the pipelines belonged to the heirs of Charles Conrad Stollmeyer, not Seenath.

The companies’ lawyers argued Seenath’s claims for unpaid rents were barred under both the Pipelines Act, which requires claims to be made within 12 months, and the Real Property Limitation Act, which sets a 16-year limit.

They also maintained Petrotrin, then Heritage, had occupied the land openly and continuously for over 31 years without challenge, extinguishing Seenath’s rights.

According to the evidence in the case, Seenath’s predecessors purchased surface rights to Esperance Estate under a 1943 deed, which reserved mineral rights to Stollmeyer and his heirs.

Compensation for surface use was to be paid by the mine owners (Stollmeyer, his heirs and/or assigns), not the defendants.

Seenath’s claim also contended that bpTT entered into an agreement with his father, Deokaran, to pay rent for use and occupation of surface lands where the 14-inch pipelines are located.

James found no contractual or statutory obligation for Petrotrin or Heritage to pay surface rents. Any claims for occupation rent should have been directed to the mine owners.

“It is clear that when Stollmeyer conveyed Esperance Estate unto the purchasers, he retained for himself all mines and minerals in upon or under Esperance Estate and retained all his original rights in relation to the mines and minerals lying in, upon or under Esperance Estate excepted.”

James said Seenath’s family did not acquire the mines and minerals on his 77-acre parcel, nor the powers, rights and liberties to enjoy them.

“What was passed was the right to obtain occupational rent from Stollmeyer and compensation for damage done in the exercise of any of the said powers.

“The claimant is under a misconception that by virtue of the deed he was entitled to receive occupational rent and damage done in the exercise of any of the said powers from the defendants.

“The claimant’s claim is against Stollmeyer/mine owners, their heirs or assigns and not the defendants.

“In conclusion, the defendants’ liability for rent to the claimant is not based in the deeds.”

On the limitation period, James noted Seenath’s right to claim rent expired 16 years after payments ceased in 1991. Negotiations in 2015 could not revive this extinguished right, he held.

“The claimant has not claimed possession but has claimed rent. Firstly, an act of negotiations cannot be regarded as sufficient so as to break the continuity of the defendants’ possession and it does not stop a limitation period from running.

“Further, even if the first letter from the defendant pleaded by the claimant constitutes an acknowledgement of the claimant’s title it was sent in August 2015 long after the claimant’s father’s right was extinguished by virtue of the Real Property Limitation Act.

“Therefore, the claimant’s claim is statute-barred under the Real Property Limitation Act, and any rights to recover rent for the 14-inch and ten-inch pipelines, including occupational or wayleave rent, have been extinguished.”

In dismissing Seenath’s claim, James ordered him to pay prescribed costs of $301,183.63, with a six-week stay of execution.

Seenath was represented by attorneys Reagel Jonathan Jagroop and Laurissa Hosein. Petrotrin and Heritage were represented by Roger Kawalsingh and Ashley Roopchansingh.