626
the pier for which Government was responsible was of little consequence as it could have been restored at a cost of about $50, and the portion referred to which was in a dilapidated condition was removed by the owners themselves and not by order of the Government.
(3) The Reclamation has not yet been actually commenced on "the portion" of the Praya foreshore in which the wharf is situated and the use of the wharf has not been interfered with. In accordance therefore with the provisions of section 8 of Ordinance No. of 1893 the compensation payable is not yet due.
Considering that the Petitioners had no claim of right to compensation in respect of the removal of the wharf beyond that suggested in the Praya Reclamation.
626
the pier for which Govern-
ment was of little co
r
responsible
was
ce as it
consequence could have been restored
at a cost of about $50, and the portion referred to which
was in a
ed con-
dilapidated dition was removed by the
owners themselves and not
by order of the Government.
(3) The Reclamation has
not yet been actually commenced on "the portion "of the Praya foreshore in
which
and the use
which the wharf is situated
of the wharf has not been interfered
with. In accordance there
fore with the provisions of
section 8 of Ordinance No.
of 1893
the
of
compensation~
payable is not yet due.
Considering that the
Petitioners had no claim.
as
in
of right to compensation in respect of the removal of the wharf beyond that suggested in the Praya
P
Reclamation.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.