The government has to pay in excess of $5 million in total which was yesterday awarded by High Court judge Priya Sewnarine-Beharry to five West Coast Berbice farmers who had sued the state over revocation of their farmlands.
Chalyn McKalman, Sonita Bristol, Sharon Solomon, Fariel Johnson and Doreen Monah were each awarded $1 million in damages for what they argued was the infringement of their fundamental rights.
Additionally, they were also granted court costs in the sum of $300,000 which also has to be borne by the state.
In their respective actions, the farmers sought, among other things, a declaration that the cancellation of their leases for agricultural purposes was contrary to and in violation of Article 142 of the Constitution and was, therefore, unlawful, null, void and of no effect.
They argued that the leases were issued under Section 3(b) of the State Lands Act, and in accordance with the Mahaica, Mahaicony, Abary-Agricultural Development Authority (MMA-ADA) Act.
They argued that the cancellation of their leases amounted to compulsory acquisition of their leasehold interest, for which no prompt payment of any, or adequate compensation was made, as is constitutionally guaranteed.
Against this background, they sought conservatory orders prohibiting servants and/or agents of the MMA-ADA or any other officer of the state from entering upon, remaining, occupying or in any manner whatsoever interfering with their quiet and peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of their lands.
In their action against the Attorney General and MMA-ADA, the farmers had asked for damages in excess of one million dollars for breach of rights; exemplary damages; and such cost, orders, writs and directions which the court considered appropriate costs.
They deposed in their fixed date applications that after being granted the leases, they would subsequently learn from press reports, that the leases would be cancelled.
The farmers in their applications complained of never being given any reason as to why their lease were being cancelled, nor were they ever afforded a hearing by any person or body or authority offering them an opportunity to show cause why their leases were being cancelled.
Advancing that the cancellations in effect amounted to compulsory acquisition of their lands, which the constitution prohibits the state from doing in the absence of prompt payment of adequate compensation, the farmers said that this gravely violated their rights and interest in their respective lands.
The farmers all described the move by the state as being an unfair one, given that they had already expended money in acquiring the various farmlands and again spending to develop them for cultivation.
Some of the farmers indicated, also, that they had been preparing to reap their harvest when the lands were taken away from them.
The farmers were represented by attorney Anil Nandlall.
