Nadur farmers lose fight against cemetery on technicalities

A case against the parish priest of the Gozitan village of Nadur and the administrator of the Gozo Cathedral, filed by a group of farmers who claim their fields had been damaged by the building of a new cemetery in the vicinity, has been thrown out because of a number of technicalities.

The Camilleri and Cassar families, who cultivate a number of fields in an area known as Ta' Ghajn Qasab in Nadur had filed a case against Nadur Parish Priest Jimmy Xerri and the administrator of the Gozo Cathedral, Victor Guzman. They argued that they used to benefit from the continuous supply of spring water from the natural aquifer, which was collected in two reservoirs and then used to irrigate the applicants' fields.

But in January 2004, despite vociferous protests by local farmers and environmental NGOs, MEPA had approved the building of a new cemetery on lands above the plaintiff's fields. Water supply to the fields was interrupted and contaminated after a layer of concrete was installed beneath the new grave site during the construction works.

The farmers argued that as the construction materials had already done, human remains had the potential to contaminate the spring and end up in the water used to irrigate the crops.

Magistrate Joanne Vella Cuschieri, presiding the court of magistrates in Gozo in its superior jurisdiction, noted that the farmers had failed to present a declaration of ownership of the land over which the cemetery was built.

The court also pointed out that Fr Jimmy Xerri had been installed as Nadur's parish priest in February 2010 when the works had been well on their way to completion. All the related permits had, in fact, been issued in the name of the former parish priest Mons Saviour Muscat.

Fr Xerri was non-suited after the court concluded that there was no evidence to prove any personal responsibility on his part. Guzman, was likewise non-suited after no direct link between him as the administrator of the Gozo Cathedral and the harm suffered by the farmers was shown.

The plaintiff's claims were rejected, with costs.