327
335
148 in which Chief Baron Kelly says "I am clearly of opinion,
and I do not think it is open to any reasonable doubt, that
the numerous provisions in the earlier part of the Lands
Clauses Act 1845 clearly, directly, expressly and necessarily
confer a title to compensation".
2
-
Part 8 of the Glasgow Act limits the
height of buildings, and divides them into classes those
which are not to be used as dwelling houses and those which
are. With regard to the first class the Act recognises (in
section 60) the vested interest of the owner of an existing
building which exceeds the limited height by allowing him to
re-erect it to its actual height. A similar provision is
contained in The Building Ordinance 1901 at present in force
herel In this case of course no right to compensation arises.
But with regard to the second class, that is to say dwelling
houses, the Act; presumably from motives of sanitation,
forbids (in section 81) such an owner re-erecting to the
original height, and therefore leaves him to his general
right to compensation beforementioned.
4.
Whether in Hongkong the owner's
interest should be preserved by thus classifying buildings,
and alternatively allowing re-erection to the former height
or compensation, or whether in all cases alike such re-erection
should be prohibited and compensation paid, is a point which
your petitioners wish to leave wholly to Your Excellency and
the Legislative Council. They however respectfully urge that
the right is one which ought to be fully recognised.
5.
Mr. Sharp, K.C., who has been acting
for your petitioners, has laid this statement of the law before
the Attorney-General, and your petitioners understand that
the