xxii
REPORT FROM THE LAND COMMISSION OF 1886-87.
Persia, and to England; the great number of documents of title which have been destroyed by fire, or lost in transit from one place to another; the number of deeds executed under Powers of Attorney, the deeds remaining and the Powers of Attorney either lost or destroyed as useless; and the exten- sions of the further term of 924 years having been, in years past, granted in many cases to people on an erroneous representation of ownership.
Owing to these circumstances the sale of land with a marketable title is in the majority of cases an absolute impossibility, and unless the purchaser is a willing purchaser, or intends to keep his pro- perty in his own hands and descendants for a long term of years, the sale of landed property in the Colony has become to a great extent an impracticable undertaking.
.
The Commissioners would also refer to recent Judgments of the Supreme Court which they have appended to this their Report, viz., Ow Yeong Kwon Sek v. Tang A Lok, which shows a state of things which they believe not to have been uncommen; Lo On v. Lee Foo Wing, which shows that possessory rights, without registration, have been under certain circunstances acknowledged; Chun Yik Chung v. Stephens, which enters fully into the original mode of marking out boundaries; and The Official Administrator of the Estate of Leung Kwong Chi v. Ho Yung relating to land at Apli- chau, showing that leases have been granted to fictitious persons, a course which in the earlier days of the Colony the Commissioners are assured was not infrequent.
With reference to limitations of Title, and the Ordinance to that effect put forward by the Soli- citors, it appears that the Ordinance was considered objectionable on the ground that it recognised possessory rights, without registration, which was considered by some undesirable. The Commissioners are of opinion, however, that with some modifications it might be advisable to adopt some of the suggestions with regard to the new Leases which may be granted, and also with regard to the invest- igation of Titles for the purpose of granting such new Leases; but a better opinion could be given upon this subject by those who will have the opportunity of working out the new arrangements.
In view of the Instructions issued to the Governor that no land shall be disposed of otherwise than by Auction, the question arises whether the Governor, in granting extensions of lots to Leaseholders for the purpose of adding to their holdings, or of rectifying or modifying boundaries, or in order to effect reclamations, or otherwise; the Registrar General in granting licences for squatting on Crown Lands, and the Surveyor General in granting licences for easements upon Crown Land, have been justified in doing so by such Instructions, and whether such grants are not therefore void in law ab initio.
No copies of Instructions have been kept in the Land Office, and where the sanction of the Secretary of State has been applied for and received, (if that were considered sufficient under the power given to the Governor by the Crown), no reference to such sanction has been made in the grant, nor has there been any such sanction recorded in the Land Office, and although a great deal of reference has been made in the Colony to missing Powers of Attorney no reference has been made by any one, apparently, to the powers of the Governor, the Registrar General, or the Surveyor General, in dealing with land or rights connected therewith from the very foundation of the Colony up to and inclusive of the present time. Everybody seems to have thought, including the authorities themselves, that the Governor, as representing the Queen, had the power to dispose of Crown Lands in any way he thought fit, and that the Surveyor General as Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Registrar General as delegated by the Governor, had full power to grant licences affecting interests in such Lands. In fact all parties seem to have considered that, in dealing with a public Officer, they were in fact dealing with the Crown, and that the Crown was in fact bound by the action of its Officers in respect to Land, even if the Governor exceeded the powers which were delegated solely to him and the other Officers had no powers conferred upon them to deal with land, or with interests arising therefrom, by the Crown at all.