RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – WHETHER THE GRANT OF A DEEMED RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY REMAINS VALID UPON A SUBSEQUENT EXPRESS GRANT OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY OVER A PARCEL OF LAND
“The position of the law on the subject is that where a person owns a deemed right of occupancy over a parcel of land by virtue of Section 34 (2) of the Land Use Act, he is entitled to same rights available to a holder of a statutory right of occupancy.
– see Provost, L.S.C.E. V. Edun (supra), wherein this Court held as follows –
The Respondents in the present case were in exclusive physical possession of the land in dispute and were using the same for agricultural purposes in a non-urban area – – immediately before the commencement of the Land Use Act, 1978. They are, therefore, deemed holders of customary right of occupancy in respect of the land in dispute by operation of law at the commencement of the Land Use Act, 1978 on the 29th March, 1978. Their deemed grant is no less effective than a customary right of occupancy expressly granted by the appropriate Local Government Deemed grants, whether of statutory or customary right of occupancy are as valid as express grants and may not be defeated by any unlawful subsequent dealing in respect of such land by the original owners thereof. This is because after a party has divested himself of interest in land or any res, no right vests in him to deal with such property any further.
So, a statutory right of occupancy deemed to have been granted by the Governor of a State pursuant to Section 34(2) of the Land Use Act, is as valid as a statutory right of occupancy expressly granted by the Governor by virtue of Section 5(1)(a)”.
PER A.A.AUGIE, J.S.C in GENERAL COTTON MILL LIMITED VS TRAVELLERS PALACE HOTEL LER SC. 297/200 https://legalpediaonline.com/general-cotton-mill-limited-vs-travellers-palace-hotel/