JUDGMENT

Celestina Stuel Galid J:

Land Law

Introduction

[1] The matter before me is an appeal by the Plaintiff pursuant to s 41(1) of the Land Ordinance ("the Ordinance") against the decision of the Director of Lands & Surveys Department ("DLS") in reversing the decision of the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue ("ACLR") who refused the 1st Defendant's application to remove the Plaintiff's caveat on the land held under CL 075367902 ("the land").

Analysis And Decision

[2] Section 116 (4) of the Ordinance provides that:

"Any person whose land or interest is bound by a caveat may, except in the case of a caveat by the Collector, make application to the Collector in writing to remove the caveat, and thereupon the Collector may serve a notice upon the caveator in the form of Schedule XXI requiring him to show cause why the said caveat should not be removed, and the Collector shall, after hearing the parties, make such order as he shall think just."

[3] It is trite law that in an application for the removal of caveats, the caveator bears the burden of showing that:

(a) he has caveatable interest in the subject land;

(b) his claim to an interest in the subject land raises a serious question to b