the Crown represented by the colonial Government but it was one of which the War Department had right of perpetual user for purposes of defence and the "Buildings" on such lands.
Now it seems to me, with all deference, that, looking to the fact the Military Authorities, if possibly bringing themselves within the case, cannot construe the above language.
"This Government agreed not to permit the erection of any buildings which would interfere with the efficiency of the defence, but, subject to that, the user and possession of the Land remained vested in the Government and was not transferred to the Military Authorities at all.
It seems to me, therefore, that the species of easement enjoyed by the Military Authorities could not possibly be regarded as a right of user of the land. It was intended to secure to them a right or privilege, not a perpetual right, but one that was only to last for such a period as the restriction against building continued to be necessary.
In conclusion, I would point out that if the contention of the Military Authorities were correct, the absurd consequence would follow that all the houses in the quarry village of Sai Wan, the inhabitants of which pay rent and taxes to the Government, would have to be considered as Military Buildings and valued as such, and their value would have to be credited to the Military Authorities, if the latter at any time brought fit to dispense with the restriction against building and to release the village from the reserve.
There are all the observations which