Skip to main content

Guyana once again has a Robrt Mughabe type of Govt!!!!!!!!

Public servant challenges CHPA’s move to seize her property, sues State for over $10M

 

Related Articles

 

CORE Home owner, Linda Persaud is suing the State for in excess of $10M, as well as several orders from the Constitutional Court.

According to court documents seen by Citizens’ Report, Persaud’s contentions are that: the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA) has taken possession of her property; and that as a result she has been prevented from entering or occupying her property – both acts a violation of Article 142 of Guyana’s Constitution

The woman, of Lot 3608, Block 8, Plantation Tuschen, East Bank Essequibo, claims that the debacle escalated when agents of the CHPA/Ministry of Housing last December entered her premises and erected a sign that read ‘Property of Central Housing and Planning Authority’.

The Public Servant and single mother of three daughters – ages nine, five and seven-months-old – also claims that on April 19, 2011, she purchased the home, via a written Memorandum of Agreement of Sale made and entered in the County of Demerara with CHPA.

After paying $192,000, according to her, she was given a transport and maintains that the grounds on which CHPA acted were detailed in the Agreement of Sale, which was given two years before she received her transport.  “The terms and conditions of the said Agreement are not and were never made conditions of my Transport,” Persaud said in a sworn affidavit.

The woman added that CHPA’s lawyer, Hannifah Jordan, issued her a letter on November 18, 2015, citing terms and conditions in the Agreement of Sale, specifically non-occupancy.

Persaud, however, insists that she resides at the home. She added that when CHPA visited she was at her mother’s residence, in the same village. The woman stated that her mother was ill and she was away to take care of her. It was at that time that the CHPA erected a sign that read ‘Property of Central Housing and Planning Authority’.

CALLS
As such, the mother of three is seeking for the Court to issue a Conservatory Order prohibiting “servants and/or agents of the Central Housing and Planning Authority, the Ministry of Housing or any other Officer of the State from entering upon, remaining, occupying or in any manner whatsoever interfering with the Applicant’s quiet and peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment” at her property.

Persaud is also seeking a declaration from the Court that CHPA’s actions were unlawful and have contravened or are likely to contravene her “fundamental right and freedom not to have her property compulsorily taken possession of without the prompt payment of adequate compensation” as is guaranteed to her by Article 142 of the Constitution of Guyana;

 

 

Replies sorted oldest to newest

asj posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Nehru Bhai don't tek you eyes and pass Mugabe.  He was never as bad as dem Coalition boys!!!!

Probably Nehru Bhai means the general Idi Amin

No, I mean Mughabe.  Burnham was a student of him, Granger was a student of Burnham.

Nehru

Published by Anil Nandalall

Press Statement

It is now public knowledge that the Central Housing and Planning Authority has made a decision to repossess properties from persons who were all...ocated a house and lot under the “Core House” Pilot Programme of the Peoples’ Progressive Party/Civil (PPP/C) Government. Under this programme, these persons were requested to pay for the land and to contribute “an equity share of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) towards the construction of the core house”. These persons did so and Certificates of Title were issued to them for these properties.

Prior to the issue of the title, these persons entered into an Agreement of Sale with the CH & PA. This Agreement of Sale contained a number of terms and conditions including, inter alia, that “Upon failure of the beneficiary(ies) to occupy the said property within one month of its delivery, the beneficiary(ies) shall be bound to give up possession of the land and building to the Authority and to re-convey title to the Central Planning and Housing Authority.”

On the 17th of November, 2015, the CH&PA issued letters to a number of the beneficiaries of the programme informing them that they are in “breach of your obligation to occupy the said property within the stipulated period and as a result of your said breach, the Central Housing and Planning Authority will be taking steps to rescind the said Agreement.

Accordingly you are required to:-

1. Seek a refund of monies paid for the land and equity contribution by submitting all originals of the following documents no later than December, 17, 2015:-

a. Housing Allocation Letter,
b. Agreement for sale for land/building,
c. Certificate of Title to Land,
d. Receipts showing payment, and

2. Sign an Originating Summons to cancel the Certificate of Title to Land before the High Court. This will ensure that the property is transferred back to the Government.”

Some of these persons consulted me and I wrote to the CH&PA informing them that these persons contend that they are in possession of their properties; they cannot lawfully repossess these properties on the ground of non-occupation. I made the matter public. I thought that the CH&PA would have abandoned this flagrant unconstitutional pursuit of expropriation of private property. It has now been drawn to my attention that the CH&PA has recently resorted to threats, intimidation, artifice, trickery and deceit in getting persons to hand over to them their Agreements of Sale, Certificates of Title, keys to their premises and inducing them to sign certain documents, without any independent legal advice and without explaining to them the nature, purport and effect of those documents.

This entire course of action on the part of the CH&PA is unlawful and constitutes an abrogation of the protection, which the Constitution accords to the citizenry against the compulsory acquisition of their private property by the State. The legal truth is that a Certificate of Title confers upon its holder absolute ownership of the property to which it relates subject only to registered encumbrances. A person can only lawfully lose his Certificate of Title if it is established to the satisfaction of a Court of competent jurisdiction that he acquired same fraudulently. Certainly, a person cannot lose his property on the ground of non-occupancy.

I call on all the beneficiaries of this programme not to submit to the authoritarianism and unlawful actions of the CH&PA. I urge that they seek legal advice and representation of their choice. The PPP/C has assembled a team of lawyers who are prepared to act against this injustice free of charge.

alena06

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×