IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No : HBC 147 of 2000L

BETWEEN:

RAM BHAGAT s/o Puran
Plaintiff

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
First Defendant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
Second Defendant

Counsels: Mrs M. Muir for the Plaintiff
Mr. S.D. Turaga for the Defendants

Date of Hearing: 15th November 2007
Date of Judgment: December 2007

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is a sugar cane farmer at Rarawai, Ba. Prior to 1972 he was the tenant of Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited (CSR). In 1972 the CSR surrendered its land to the State. The State then issued approval notices to sitting tenants of the CSR. The plaintiff also was issued with an approval notice covered by file LD. 4/1/1661 with sugar cane contract number 1511. The approval notices are issued by the State where there has not been a proper survey of the land. The purpose of the approval notice is to provide a temporary measure of protection to the tenants pending the issue of the survey and registered lease. A registered lease has not been issued to the plaintiff so far.

For the purposes of this action, only Clause 4 of the approval notice is relevant. This clause featured prominently in the defence. The defence suggested to the plaintiff that given this Clause 4, the State could do what it wanted during the survey. Clause 4 reads:

"Only those areas occupied by agreement with your previous landlord, the CSR Company, will be included in the leased area. (It may be necessary for the Director during survey to make minor boundary alterations in order to satisfy the subdivisional requirements of local bodies and/or the Subdivision of Land Board).

Basically an approval notice to lease is a contract between the lessor and lessee. The parties are bound by its terms. Clause 4 does permit the defendant to make minor boundary alterations. However, these changes cannot be made at its whim. The changes can only be made if local bodies require that or for the Subdivision of Land Board requires it. Otherwise, a tenant got areas he occupied during this term of lease with the CSR.

The evidence of the plaintiff and his son is that the plaintiff occupied certain area of land. He stated and his evidence is corroborated by his son that the officers of the Ministry of Land placed boundary pegs around his farm. The result of this survey was that he lost a small area of land approximately 20 perches on one end and 27 perches on the other end of his land. These areas were pointed out on a plan of the land. He stated that he used to grow a small amount of cane about half a ton in the 20 perches area and used the other for grazing and tethering his cattle. The more drastic result of the exclusion of the 27 perches and attempting to allocate it to a neighbouring squatter is that he would lose out on cane access road. This access he said he has used for 50 years to transport his cane. I believe what the plaintiff told me. I find that the Lands Department did attempt to peg out two areas from his land and this was not done for purposes of requirements of any local body or for subdivisional purposes.

The defendant’s witness Swarat Singh had no first hand knowledge. He had not been on the land. He was not involved in the survey. He did not have the subject file from the department with him.

The plaintiff stated that he stopped cultivating the land in 2004. It therefore means that he continued to grow cane on the 20 perches after the issue of the writ of summons. His loss is really half a ton of cane for last three areas. He pointed the area excluded is being smaller then the court house so I believe the plaintiff assessment of half a ton is very likely to be accurate rather than the son’s estimate of four tons who in turn was relying on some unnamed valuer for his estimation. His nett annual loss after deducting expenses for fertilizer, harvesting, cartage would be roughly ten to twelve dollars per annum, so over a period of three years roughly $40.00.

Accordingly I order that the defendants are restrained from excluding the two portions of land being 20 perches and 27 perches of plaintiff’s land from the registered lease when issued. I allow the plaintiff damages in the sum of $40.00. I also order costs summarily fixed in the sum of $2,000.00. 

If I may say so, this was a case eminently suitable for resolution by the Agricultural tribunal. The Tribunal under Section 22(l)(i) of the Agricultural Tenant and Landlord Act has the powers to specify the area and boundaries of any agricultural holding. That would have been a much faster and cheaper avenue for the plaintiff to resolve this dispute.

[ Jiten Singh ]
JUDGE

At Lautoka
December 2007