+
was found advisable in 1900 to extend all the laws of the
Colony to that portion of the New Territories which is
defined under Ordinance No. 30 of 1900 as New Kowloon. It is
therefore desirable that the tenure of land in New Kowloon
should be the same as that existing in Hongkong and Kowloon.
On account also of the proximity above referred to,
land in New Kowloon is more valuable and has already changed
hands (and is likely to continue to do so) much more freely
than in the rest of the New Territories. A Crown Lease will
confer on the lessee a marketable title of far greater value
should he desire to dispose of the land than any Certificate
of customary rights, under the New Territories Titles Ordinance
the ascertaiment of which would be very difficult in each
particular case and would probably lead upon assignment of
the property to troublesome litigation.
In the New Territories the case is very different
and I cannot do better than refer you to the enclosed extract
-
from a minute by Mr. Gompertz, who drafted the Titles Ordinance
to show why the somewhat elaborate system obtaining in the
old Colony is not suitable to the New Territories.
5.
Two simple forms of Crown Lease have been
drawn up for New Kowloon, one for Farm or Garden Lots and the
other for Building Lots and it is proposed to assess the
Crown Rent in each case on its merits.
Similar forms of leases will be used for those
customary landholders or others who desire Crown Leases for
land in the New Territories, and I propose that the term of
all Crown Leases both in New Kowloon and in the New Territories
shall be 75 years renewable at a re-assessed Crown Rent for
Cone Losure 3. 25th August,
انا صور
the