DEREK ACHONG
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A farmer has emerged victorious in a legal battle with the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and his stepmother over a 25-acre parcel of land in Mausica, D’Abadie.
Delivering a judgment last Friday, Justice Ricky Rahim upheld Jeason Khemraj Kanick’s lawsuit against the State company and his stepmother, Mahadayia Kanick.
The lawsuit centred around ownership of the land, which is part of a 73-acre estate known as Pineapple Smith Lands.
In 1950, Edward Barton Smith obtained a 25-year lease for the entire parcel of land from the then-governor of the country.
In January 1980, Smith agreed to sell (assign) the leasehold interest in the land to three farmers.
One of the three farmers then transferred his interests in the land to Kanick’s father, Khemraj.
Around the time of the transaction, Kanick’s father separated from Mahadayia and began living with his mother Dhanpatie.
He eventually built a house on his portion of the land for his second family and continued to perform large-scale farming on the remainder until he died in December 2000.
Kanick continued to farm the land and used the proceeds to clear the significant debt his father left unpaid at the time of his death.
In 2013, the land was vested in the HDC under a 999-year lease.
Kanick filed the case in 2021 after the HDC sought to take possession of the disputed land and installed a perimeter fence.
Mahadayia, who was the legal personal representative of his father’s estate, filed a counterclaim alleging that the estate retained interest in the land and Kanick was only given permission to utilise it for farming.
In deciding the case, Justice Rahim had to determine whether Kanick or his father had extinguished the HDC’s claim to the land through adverse possession.
Under the legal principle, squatters can obtain ownership of land if they can prove exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession for 16 years in terms of land owned by private individuals and 30 years for State land.
While Justice Rahim found that Kanick’s father had occupied and controlled the land to the exclusion of others, he noted that he (the father) had not done so for the requisite period for State land at the time of his death.
However, he ruled that by continuing to use the land for farming, Kanick was allowed to add the years of his occupation to his father’s.
“In the round, therefore, the court finds that the adverse possession of Khemraj when added to the adverse possession of Jeason up to the date of filing amounts to some forty years,” he said.
Justice Rahim also ruled that Mahadayia and her four children with Khemraj could not claim title to the land through his estate as they did not contribute to the continued adverse possession of the land.
“Even during the lifetime of Khemraj, it is obvious on the evidence that Mahadayia and her children played no role in those lands and in the business,” Justice Rahim said.
While Justice Rahim found that the corporation’s title had not been extinguished at the time the land was vested to it, he found that such occurred before the corporation sought to take possession almost a decade later.
Based on his finding, Justice Rahim ruled that the corporation acted unlawfully in seeking to evict Kanick.
Justice Rahim issued a declaration that Kanick is entitled to exclusive possession as well as an order for the HDC to vacate the property and remove part of the fence.
The HDC was also ordered to pay Kanick damages for trespass, which would be assessed by a High Court Master at a later date.
The HDC and Mahadayia were ordered to pay Kanick’s legal costs for pursuing the lawsuit and defending the counterclaim.
Kanick was represented by Mark and Vishala Seepersad, while Kirk Bengochea and Kellee Spicer represented his stepmother.
The HDC was represented by Deborah Peake, SC, Ravi Heffes-Doon, and Andre Rudder.
