Rice farmers of Seafield, West Coast Berbice (WCB) are embroiled in yet another court battle over lease lands. According to court documents, the Seafield Cooperative Land Society (SCLS) has filed a constitutionalThe three farmers, Phillip Johnson, Rawle Miller and Rupert Blackman following the ruling last month.motion against Mahaica-Mahaicony-Abary Agricultural Development Authority (MMA/ADA) and some 26 rice farmers who are said to have leased several plots of land in the area.The action was filed following a ruling by the court that cleared the way for a group of rice farmers from Seafield WCB, to repossess farm lands which were previously reclaimed by the MMA/ADA.Last October,NFL Jerseys Wholesale, rice farmers, Philip Johnson, Rawle Miller and Rupert Blackman had moved to the courts through Attorney Anil Nandlall after the MMA/ADA cancelled their leases for several acres of plantation lands granted under the hand of former President Donald Ramotar.A ruling was subsequently handed down by former Chief Justice (Ag) Ian Chang, which ? quashed the MMA/ADA‘s decision. The then Chief Justice (CJ) noted that the agricultural body had no authority to cancel a lease granted by the President on the ground that it was granted unlawfully.However, the SCLS in a motion filed by Attorney Saphier Hussein outlined that the Cooperative Land Society was registered and operated before the MMA/ADA with members of the society occupying some 574 acres of the land exclusively from 1976 to 2014.The SCLS said that the lands were under the Peoples National Congress, (PNC) but in July 2014, the MMA/ADA under the previous administration reclaimed it.The Cooperative Society contends that the portions of lands were seized by the MMA/ADA, without adequate consultation and consideration for its owners. The applicants claimed that this is against the laws of natural justice.According to the SCLS, they along with their predecessors have been rice cultivators of the said lands for about over 100 years, but they suffered discrimination at the hands of MMA/ADA, threats and physical clashes from the farmers who were subsequently granted leases by the former Government.As such, the SCLS are seeking a declaration by the court that portions of land converted from state to private lands are contrary to law and Article 142 and 149 of the constitution.Based on articles 139, 142, 144 (8), 149 and 153 of the Constitution of Guyana,? the Cooperative? Society? is seeking a declaration that leases issued by the MMA/ADA and? published in Saturday? November 3, are void for? violation of Constitution of Guyana? Articles? 142,Cheap Adidas NHL Jerseys, 143 149 Arbitrary and? Ultra Vires? and contrary? to Cap? 62:04? State Grants (President? Signature? Act ) in? that? the said? leases were not signed? by the President.A Declaration? that? the decision? made by honourable? Justice Ian Chang? on the? October 8? 2015? is unconstitutional,Wholesale Cheap Jerseys,? void and of no effect?? and a contravention? of Articles 139, 142.,Wholesale Jerseys 2018, 144 (8)? 149 and? 153 of the? constitution of? Guyana 1980 and the amendments thereto.The matter is set to commence on April 14, 2016. The Attorney General is also named as a respondent in the case.This case is on close heels with legal challenge against the MMA/ADA by a group of independent farmers from Seafield WCB last year.According to their statement of claim, the farmers argued that a decision by the MMA/ADA to revoke their leases? for lands in? Seafield? WCB was discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious influenced by irrelevant consideration,Cheap NFL Jerseys China, unconstitutional,NFL Jerseys China, and unlawfulThe farmers had contended that the issue stems more from collusion between members of the MMA/ADA and a selected few farmers who control the majority of lands in the West Berbice District.?? But the MMA/ADA stated the leases issued were contrary to an Order of the Court and in the circumstances, were cancelled.As a result of the arguments, former Chief Justice (Ag) Ian Chang??handed down a ruling quashing the MMA-ADA‘s decision.? He noted if the MMA-ADA was aggrieved by the Presidential grant, the authority or any aggrieved person could have taken proceedings to court, not against the President but against the Attorney General challenging the legality of the grant made by him.Additionally, the Full Court of the High Court had previously granted the farmers injunctions which restrained the MMA-ADA from further interference of the farmer’s peaceful occupation of the lands.