The Civil Court yesterday dismissed a writ of summons filed by the commissioner of land in a bid to acquire land he claimed had been usurped from the government.

The commissioner alleged that Albert Muscat Inglott had usurped land at San Pawl tat-Targa belonging to the government and called on the court to declare that the land belonged to the commissioner of land and that Muscat Inglott had illegally usurped it.

The court was also requested to order Muscat Inglott to demolish the structure constructed on the land and to order him to pay damages.

Muscat Inglott pleaded that the commissioner had to prove his title to the land in question. He also argued that he had not constructed any structure on the land and plaintiff's requests ought to be dismissed by the court.

Mr Justice Albert Magri yesterday pointed out that as the commissioner of land had requested an order for demolition of Muscat Inglott's structure, the commissioner had to prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that the land belonged to the government.

It was irrelevant if the commissioner could prove that Muscat Inglott was not the actual owner of the land, for the evidence required by the court had to be of a positive, rather than a negative nature, and the court had to be satisfied that the commissioner's claims were justified.

The commissioner of land was not basing his title to the land on some contract capable of transferring ownership, but on deductions and arguments in the sense that in the 19th century the land was granted to the British Armed Forces, and that on January 30, 1968 the lands were surrendered to the government.

The commissioner had also submitted that the land definitely belonged to the government as other persons in the same road as Muscat Inglott had purchased their land from the government.

Plaintiff also claimed that both Muscat Inglott and the person from whom he had acquired the land had approached the Land Department with a view to purchasing the land.

Mr Justice Magri noted that on July 16, 1888, the civil government had conceded to the British Armed Forces a portion of land at San Pawl tat-Targa.

This land was returned by the British Forces to the government in 1968.

However, the plans exhibited in court referring to the land did not in any manner incorporate the land which the commissioner of land claimed to own and which he claimed had been illegally occupied by Muscat Inglott.

The court added, after hearing the evidence of the director general of government lands, that the land department was deducing that the land in issue belonged to the government.

Evidence contradicting the government's deductions had been produced in this case, for an architect appointed by defendant had sustained that the land occupied by Muscat Inglott was distinct from that originally granted to the British Forces.

The fact that other land owners in the area had purchased their property from the government was irrelevant to this present case, said the court, for the actions of third parties could have no bearing on plaintiff's claims.

No evidence had been produced by plaintiff that he had provided these third parties with any conclusive evidence of the government's title to the land.

Mr Justice Magri concluded that the commissioner of land had not produced any conclusive evidence that the land in issue belonged to him, and the court proceeded to dismiss plaintiff's writ with costs.