374
then comes Ord. 25 of 1891 which by § 12, amended § 8 of 15 of 1889 by providing that an annual sum be paid for all encroachments under certain sections to Government by private owners empowering the Governor in Council regulations for the execution & maintenance of private surveys.
The amounts of rents changeable is scheduled to this ordinance.
for payment annually for disturbance of land.
It is proposed that these rents do not object to this stipulate for compensation in case of giving such compensation.
the Praya Reclamation Ordinance of 1889 (16 of 1889) set aside a sum of $150,000 for compensation to owners & occupiers of wharves operation, this being part of the reclamation.
I have reconsidered this question with Mr. Wilson & I have really no doubt that under the existing law no right to compensation by the Government to pier or wharf holders removed can be said to exist.
Under these circumstances, I leave it to you. We need not trouble the L.O.
One point has been raised by Mr. Johnson - viz whether there may be piers & wharves which not under the provisions of the Ordinance were constructed.
You will remember that recent cases laid out the mode of applying compensation from this fund to lessees who do not assent (in terms of § 1) to enter into agreements with the Government.
The Governor says that the piers or wharves are not like the required reft for Praya reclamation, which is already provided for by the Ordinance.
There is the right of ordering removal without compensation, which may make at present other cases equitable.
Personally, I think with the law that confiscation or removal of the structure, can settle the question much the better.
Autographic replies are required & if and when going to the L.O., a reply is asked for.
I think we had better ask the L.O. whether on the construction of the Ordinances compensation is required.
I tell the Crown we are doing JMC 10026.
(S)-12435-2000-1-93, 19281-3000-7-99.
& in telegraphing to the L.O. we might ask this as it is possible that prescriptive rights might be acquired, though this is most improbable.
If these persons owning piers or wharves have a legal right to compensation, I think they have no moral right, and they know they have erected them with full knowledge of the law.
The most difficult part of the principle of compensation in the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, is that the compensation to the wharf or pier owner is contingent on contribution to the cost of the scheme, though the Governor had formerly to give it at his absolute discretion.
On the whole, I am inclined not to compensate.
We had better not give away rights which we possess.
Answer by telegraph daysong legal.
In reply to your despatch No. 257