Nandlall makes preliminary objections in case of tripling of rental fees for rice farmers
Attorney Anil Nandlall on Friday argued that the Rice Assessment Committee is not properly constituted and therefore cannot conduct an investigation into the refusal of Hope Estate rice farmers to accept the tripling of the rental fee for land they occupy.
Summonses for 32 farmers have been prepared but only a little over a dozen of them have so far been served. Those farmers appeared at the Cove and John Magistrate’s Court for the proceedings, the second such held in recent weeks. The first set of matters were dismissed as a result of submissions made by counsel on behalf of the rice farmers.
Speaking to Stabroek News on Friday, Nandlall informed that at the hearing he made a number of preliminary legal objections to the composition of the Committee. He said that he argued that the committee as presently constituted is in violation of the Rice Farmers (Security of Tenure) Act which lists the qualifications of the persons who are to sit on that committee. He said that he also contended that those persons do not bear the qualifications as stipulated in the Act.
According to Nandlall, he was requested by the Chairman of the Committee, Yoganand Persaud to put his objections in writing and submit same on or before October 4, when the matter will reconvene before the Committee at the very court.
The attorney went on to explain that his contention that the entire proceedings are bad in law and should be struck out, could not be raised as the Committee is not properly constituted.
“These are small subsistence farmers. Their holdings do not exceed five acres each and they have been in occupation of the lands in excess of 20 years and the rent they are being charged are the highest charged by the government for rice lands and now they have unilaterally imposed an increase”, he stressed.
Last week, Nandlall publicized the matter on his Facebook page. In a subsequent comment to this newspaper he accused government of targeting his clients.
“Once again, they are hounding down small rice farmers at Hope Estate to take away rice lands rented by these farmers”, he related.
According to a notice sent to Girjadai Changa, who has a tenancy agreement with Hope Coconut Industries Limited, and who presently occupies 20 acres of land, the investigation by the committee pertains to rent to be certified in arrears, payment of arrears and repossession of rice land.
The notice stated that if he fails to appear, the Committee may proceed with holding the investigation.
Back in February, Changa was part of a large group of farmers who were threatening to take legal action if the new charge is imposed or any attempt is made to evict them.
Changa had explained that he is now being asked to pay $15,000 for each acre. He had recalled that in 2015, the rental fee was $3,000 per acre. The following year it was increased to $5,000 and in 2017 the company announced a new fee of $15,000. He had contended that the new charges were not affordable and that two protest actions held were not fruitful.
More than a dozen rice farmers were each issued with a ‘Notice to quit,’ which was signed by Omadatt Chandan, the attorney for the Ministry of Agriculture. According to one such notice, which was sent to farmer Khemchan Sukhlall, notice was given to “quit and deliver possession of the premises of 16 acres of rice land at (Nooten Zuil)… for non-payment of rent for the period January 2017 – December 2017.”
According to the notice, which is dated 16th January, 2018, Sukhlall was given one month to deliver possession of the land.
Nandlall had penned a letter to the attorney on behalf of the farmers indicating that the process for increasing their rent has not been followed.
In his letter, which was dated February 6th, 2018, Nandlall had indicated to Chandan that the lands in question fall under the jurisdiction of the Rice Farmers (Security of Tenure) Act, which provides a process by which rent can be increased and rice lands can be repossessed. “The purpose of this Act is to provide a regime of security of tenure for tenant-rice farmers. In short, rents chargeable for rice lands cannot be increased and a tenant of rice lands cannot be removed from possession except by the procedures outlined by the Act. We are not aware that any such procedures have been initiated or undertaken,” Nandlall wrote.
Aside from the rice farmers, persons rearing cattle and planting cash crops also occupy parcels of land at that location.