A company and 11 home owners have been ordered by the Civil Court to demolish all construction erected on land that did not belong to the developer.

Mr Justice Silvio Meli delivered judgment in an action filed in 1985 by Francis Manduca against Lay Lay Company Limited represented by Mikiel Axisa. When Mr Manduca died, his case was continued by his heirs, Joseph and Alfred Manduca.

Mr Manduca said he was the owner of a plot of land – Plot L4 – in the area known as Ta’ Rmiedi, in the limits of Attard. He accused the company of usurping about 446 square metres of the land on which it erected buildings.

The company, he added, had also taken over another portion of land that it held in common with Mr Manduca in the same area and had also constructed buildings.

Mr Manduca had asked the court to order the company to demolish all development on the two portions of land.

Lay Lay rejected the allegations and, in 1987, 11 owners of the properties constructed on the land in question were called into the suit.

They are James Fsadni, Mary Vassallo, David Fenech, John Fenech, John Bellizzi, Joseph Falzon, Mario Abela, Francis Giudice, Filomena Azzopardi, Anthony Bezzina and George Vella.

They also rejected Mr Manduca’s claims and pleaded that they had purchased their properties in good faith from third parties.

The court-appointed architect who inspected the land established that there had been an invasion of Mr Manduca’s property by the company, which had divided the land into plots and sold them.

Those who had purchased their properties from the company or from other parties were also held responsible by Mr Manduca for the usurpation of the land though they, obviously, had the right of recourse against the vendors.

The architect, however, concluded that three of the 11 owners were responsible for the usurpation of the land, namely James Fsadni, Filomena Azzopardi and Francis Giudice and his wife Janie.

The judge accepted the architect’s conclusions and noted that it was the company which had built and sold the properties constructed on Mr Manduca’s land.

This was an unacceptable state of affairs, said the court, adding that the time taken for the case to be concluded was shameful.

Mr Justice Meli found that Lay Lay Co. Ltd had invaded Mr Manduca’s property and ordered it and the 11 home owners to demolish all development erected on the land in issue within six months at the company’s expense.