A couple from St Helena has discontinued a lawsuit against the Airports Authority of T&T over control of a parcel of land bounding the Piarco International Airport.
Mitchell and Vidya Sankar gave the concession as their lawsuit went to trial before Justice Frank Seepersad at the Waterfront Judicial Centre in Port-of-Spain yesterday morning.
The couple gave evidence and was cross-examined by the authority’s lawyers led by Senior Counsel Ian Benjamin. Their lawyer Gerald Ramdeen requested that the case be stood down for discussions between the two parties.
When the case was recalled by Justice Seepersad a short while later, he was informed that the parties had reached a compromise under which the case would be withdrawn by the couple.
He was also told that the authority had agreed to give the couple six months in which to reap their crops on the 14 acres of land and vacate it.
Justice Seepersad commended the parties for coming to the agreement, which saved one and a half days that were reserved for the trial. “I hope this takes place more as reality confronts us,” Justice Seepersad said.
In the lawsuit, the couple’s lawyers claimed that Mitchell took possession of the land vested with the authority two years before he married Vidya.
They claimed that they cleared the land, which was overgrown, and planted coconut trees and short-term crops. The couple alleged that they had unimpeded control of the land until July 2021, when the authority’s officials entered the land and sought to block their continued access.
The lawsuit claimed the couple should be considered to have obtained the title to the land through adverse possession. Under the legal principle, squatters can retain control of a property if they have been in continuous possession for 16 years and the lawful owner fails to take action to evict them within the period.
In their case, the couple claimed that the authority’s action deprived them and their employees of the income they earned from farming the land. Through the lawsuit, the couple was seeking a series of declarations against the authority.
In its response to the couple’s pre-action protocol letter threatening the lawsuit, the authority denied any wrongdoing. It claimed that the couple began possession in 2008 and, hence, fell outside the statutory period for adverse possession.
It also stated that it had erected “no trespassing” signs on the land and had warned the couple and other farmers occupying adjoining lots of its control.
The authority also claimed that its security personnel frequently patrolled the land and warned the farmers against erecting permanent structures.
The couple was also represented by Dayadai Harripaul.
