|
Raymond Aquilina, a director of the company Terra Mediterranea, the developer of the Wied Mejxu property in the Swieqi land questions, has stated in an affidavit that the land upon which he built maisonettes was never the property of the Church, and could never be transferred to the government.
The land in question, the source of a legal battle over the rightful ownership of Ta’ Giakond, was purchased by Raymond Aquilina on 15 July 2002 through his company Terra Mediterranea, for Lm36,000 from the company Spiteri Holdings Ltd.
It was Spiteri Holdings Ltd which sold the land to Terra Mediterranea with the guarantee of peaceful possession.
It was only after Terra Mediterranea purchased the land at Ta’ Giakondu that on the 22 May, 2003, the Joint Office registered the land with the government as part of the 1992 agreement to transfer Church lands to the state.
According to Aqulina, research into the origins of the land show that it was never listed in the Annex 8 list of lands to be transferred and it was only on 22 May that it was formally registered, and therefore became government property. In fact, the 1992 Property of Ecclesliastical Entities Act does not oblige the land registry to verify its title with the government, and makes it only necessary to know that the land has been included in the Annex 8.
Terra Mediterranea had already developed the land, constructing four maisonettes and eight garages, among them sold to various buyers for prices ranging between Lm35,000 and Lm37,000. Aquilina said the maisonettes were sold under commercial loans for which HSBC bank vetted the origin and title of the land.
The land itself was purchased under the guarantee of peaceful possession as stated in the 15 July 2002 contract Terra Mediterranea signed with Spiteri Holdings Ltd, in which it is stated verbatim that the company “warrants peaceful possession of the property sold herein by means of a general hypothecation on all its property, present and future.”
Terra Mediterranean reiterated its guarantee with all its buyers in the contracts of sale.
Aquilina claimed that the Joint Office was not empowered to transfer the land to the government, subsequently attacking the validity of the registration in a court case against the director of the land registry.
|
