Central Housing and Planning Authority granted relief sought
CHIEF Justice (Ag.) Mr. Ian Chang, S.C. on Tuesday dismissed an action brought by Mr. Jailall Tiwari Kissoon who had claimed that a resolution made by the Central Housing & Planning Authority, purporting to acquire 55 acres of land at Plantation Bee Hive, East Coast, Demerara, was null and void and of no legal effect.
The Central Housing and Planning Authority, the No. 2 defendant in the action brought by Kissoon, was granted the relief it sought. The other defendants were the Attorney General, and No. 3 defendant, Dwarka Ramkarran.
Plaintiff Kissoon, who was accompanied by his brother, Mr. Nandram Kissoon, had sought relief including
(a) A sum in excess of $50, 000 for trespass committed by the defendants.
(b) An injunction restraining the second and third named defendants from further trespassing or interfering or impeding or encumbering or disposing or in any way dealing with the 55 acres of land at Bee Hive, East Coast, inconsistent with the plaintiffs right title and interest and their peaceful occupation thereof until the hearing and determination of this action.
©   A declaration that the order or resolution made by the No. 2 defendant, in particular, resolution dated 20th November 1975, as published in the Official Gazette dated 6th day of December 1975, purporting to acquire 55 acres of land more or less as described in (a) above is null and void and of no legal effect as being bad in law, illegal and repugnant to the Constitution of Guyana.
(d)  A declaration that the plaintiffs are the true owners of the said block of land who have always been in undisturbed possession of the aforesaid 55 acres of land.
Continuing his judgment, the acting Chief Justice said, “According to the Statement of Claim, on the 9th January, 1998, Dwarka Ramkaran, the 3rd named defendant, served a Notice of Intended Survey on the second named plaintiff for a survey to be done on the land purportedly acquired by resolution published in the Official Gazette on the 6th December, 1975. Despite objection from the plaintiffs, the 3rd named defendant nevertheless carried out the survey on the 12th January, 1998.
`Despite the making and publication of the said resolution in the Official Gazette in 1975, the 2nd  named defendant never took possession of the land and the plaintiffs continued to remain in occupation of the land which were used for growing rice and for pasturing cattle.
“According to the Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs were never afforded a hearing nor were they notified of the purported acquisition except by way of the publication of the resolution in the Official Gazette.
“In the Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs stated that the sum of $52, 000 was arbitrarily deposited with the Public Trustee as compensation without their consent and that the said sum was uplifted by the 1st named plaintiff.
“In the defence and Counter-Claim, the defendants contended that under Transport No. 1064/94 of the 10th  October, 1994, the Eastern half of Plantation Bee Hive was vested in the name of the 1st and 2nd named plaintiffs and Bharat Kissoon, save and except Blocks A and B, Section A Plantation Bee Hive, which was vested in the Central Housing and Planning Authority on the 30th  of January, 1976 based on a plan drawn by  C.R. Ting-a-Kee, Sworn Land Surveyor and deposited in the Deeds Registry on the 30th January 1976 and more fully described in the Memorandum  attached to Transport No. 53 of 1948.”
After citing a number of cases on the point, the Chief Justice added, “On the application of the presumption of constitutionality, one must presume that the Housing Act provided for adequate compensation.
“In any event, it is also too late in the day to argue that any provision of the Housing Act is void for inconsistency with any provision in the 1980 Constitution, it would have been saved since it was not challenged for constitutional inconsistency within six months of the commencement of the 1980 Constitution.
“For the reasons given in this judgment, this court must dismiss the plaintiffs’ action and grant to the 2nd named defendant the reliefs sought
“There will be costs to the defendants in the sum of $100, 000, against the plaintiffs jointly and severally”, the Chief Justice Ag said in his judgment.