Jerseys Cheap NFL pn0nu3na

fd9je6mn

Months after a judgment was handed down against Toolsie Persaud Limited for a plot of 6.3 acres land atRay Anthony RutherfordBlock “U” Eccles-Ramsburg Village, East Bank Demerara, one of the present owners, businessman Ray Anthony Rutherford is claiming that he is being bullied by the business giant, Toolsie Persaud, for the said plot of land.“I was in court for 20-years for this land; we already win this case in court and carried him to court for damage of property. Now the man is paying a contractor to fence off the front of the land to block me,” Rutherford said.Adding that Toolsie Persaud has intruded on six acres of his property and damaged his fence and the land, Rutherford said Persaud also built a 40×20 bond on his land for workers who are constructing a 500-foot concrete fence, and storing a large amount of loam on the land.The agitated man said that he served the police at the Providence Police Station a copy of the court order. “The police said now I have to carry him to court for more damage to property.”Rutherford is claiming that Toolsie Persaud has trespassed on his property, damaged his land, and is guilty of contempt of court.In the Statement of Claim, Rutherford who by way of a power of attorney is representing the plaintiffs (Rajkumarie Permesar and Kowsilla Permesar) claimed that they were the owners of immovable property described as Block U in Transport No.1932 of 1973 which they had purchased from the Demerara Company Limited in 1973 — save and except Mudlot E which they had sold to the Guyana Sugar Corporation and another portion which the Government of Guyana had compulsorily acquired to facilitate the construction of the Demerara Harbour Bridge.Around December 15, 1993, according to the Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs discovered that part of Block U was being used by Toolsie Persaud Limited, to fabricate pontoons.Their investigations revealed that in an ex parte application made by the Attorney-General in proceedings No. 1667 of 1989, Justice Desiree Bernard made an order pursuant to section 23 of the Deeds Registry Act that the plaintiffs’ written consent be dispensed with and further that in another subsequent ex parte application made in proceedings No. 1410 of 1991, Justice Ganpatsingh made another order purporting to effect a correction to the plaintiffs’ transport No. 1932 of 1973 excluding 6.3 acres from the ownership of the plaintiffs under the said transport.Rutherford claims that Toolsie Persaud has built a bond illegally on the land while constructing a fence against court orders.The ex parte application in which Justice Ganpatsingh made the “corrective” order was supported by an Affidavit sworn to by the then acting Commissioner of Lands and Surveys to the effect that the 6.3 acres (sublot B) comprised the foreshore of Guyana and were therefore State land which had been erroneously included in Block U as part of the plaintiffs’ property in Transport No. 1932 of 1973.According to the plaintiffs’ affidavit, they were never made aware of the proceedings or the related Order made by Justice Bernard on May 9, 1989. Nor were they made aware of the proceedings or the related Order made by Justice Ganpatsingh on April 23, 1991.In their Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs further stated that after Justice Ganpatsingh made the Order purporting to correct the plaintiffs transport No. 1932 of 1973 which consequentially dispossessed the plaintiffs of 6.3 acres of land, the then Commissioner of Lands and Surveys issued a Provisional Lease effective from January 1, 1992 to the added defendant, Toolsie Persaud Limited, for Sub-Block B, part of Block U, and that Sub-Block B covered that 6.3 acres of land which was removed from the plaintiffs’ transport No. 1932 of 1973.In their Defence, the first-named and second-named defendants (the A.G. and the Commissioner of Lands and Surveys) stated that,Cheap Jerseys From China, according to Plan No. 14273 dated November 13, 1970, Block U was surveyed on November 9, 1970 by Sworn Land Surveyor, Edward G. Thompson, at the request of Demerara Company Limited and that it was on the basis of that plan that Block U was passed by transport to the plaintiffs.