A milk producer, whose farm lies on government-leased land, yesterday contested an order for his eviction due to the land in question being needed for the Smart City project.

Raymond Scerri and his wife Rita filed a request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction to be issued to stop his eviction from tenement 51741 on the outskirts of Zabbar.

The request was filed in the First Hall of the Civil Court against the Director of the Lands Department. The complainants contend that in June 2006 they were informed that the property, which had been leased to them by the government, was needed for public use in line with the Agricultural Leases Act of 1967.

The Scerris replied that the property in question was used to rear animals. Mr Scerri was registered as a milk producer and was also licensed by the Health Department. He claims that for these reasons his lease did not fall under the 1967 Act and therefore he could not be evicted.

The Scerris were again informed that their property was required for public use in August 2006. This time article 1576A of the Civil Code was cited.

On 26 February 2007, the eviction order was issued giving the Scerris two weeks to clear the area.

As a result of this, the Scerris filed the writ claiming that they could not be evicted as the property was not required for public use. They also claim that in addition, according to the law, the Lands Department was to provide them with an alternative property and compensation if they were evicted.

In its reply to the Scerris’ submissions, the Lands Department claimed that, among other things, the land was needed for the Smart City project that was a project of public

interest. In a sitting held yesterday, Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro heard Lands Department director Albert Mamo explain that it had been known since last year that the area had been earmarked for the Smart City project.

He said that, after the Scerris had been served with the eviction order, they had agreed that the Lands Department would provide them with an alternative property for their business, but this may take up to two years as an alternative site had not yet been identified. He said that, although the Scerris were not the only farmers in the area, they were the only ones who reared animals. The judge also heard that the crux of the case revolved around the fact that the Lands Department, represented by Professor Ian Refalo, was claiming that the land that had been leased to the Scerris was required for public use.

But the Scerris, represented by lawyers Roberto Montalto and Edward Zammit Lewis, claim this is not the case. The Scerris have submitted an area plan of the Smart City boundaries issued by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in December 2006, which shows that the Scerris’ farm does not fall within the project boundaries.

But the Lands Department submitted a plan that had been presented and approved by parliament in March 2007 (after the eviction order was issued). This plan shows that the Scerris’ farm falls within the Smart City project. A decision will be announced by the courts on 19 April.