Question were (as stated in
an
letter of 30 Nov. Danly provisionally subject to restrictions;
I then go on to offer the lines suggested my minist a compromise in last part of 22486/marked B) Sud 2/4/97 C.PL.2
The War Office apparently shifts its ground, and, abandoning its claim to have this land treated as "Colonial Military Land" within the meaning of the circular of 1894, now claim that the military authorities have certain rights to the ground which they propose to abandon, and for the abandonment of which they are entitled to compensation as if they were entitled to the land in full.
It appears to me that the principle put forward is just and equitable. The question is whether the claim is well founded in point of fact.
I gather from the correspondence that the land belongs to Government, pending the final determination of the scheme for the defence works, it was let out with a complete restriction as to building, subject to the form that if the lessee built, he did so at the risk of having to remove his building without compensation if deemed necessary by the Military authority (see Resolution of the Ex. Co: of 17th Jan 1877). This resolution gave rise to a dispute between the civil and military authorities; but finally, when the defensive scheme was settled, it was found that it was not worth while to place any restriction on building on the land in question.
According to the War Office view, the case is like that in which a private person has an easement - a right to light, air, etc. - over another person's land, for the abandonment of which he sets up a claim to compensation. If their scheme of defence had been different, they might have prohibited building. As it is, the land is now free from the restriction on building which had been imposed, and the question is who benefits from this.
It does not appear to me inequitable that the Colonial Government should be debited (on the principle of the circular of 1894) with an amount equivalent to the benefit derived from the removal of the restriction. I should suggest that this view be put before the Colonial Office before...
Page 4
B
question were (as stated in
an
letter of 30
Nov. Danly provisionally subject to restrictions;
I then go
on
to offer
the lines suggested
my
minist
a
compromise
in last part of 22486/marked B)
Sud 2/4/97 C.PL.2
The Was office apparently shifts its ground, and, abandoning its clain
to have this land treated
7
Colonial
Military Land" within the meaning
of the cirendar of 1894
to be crediad
optiere in terms of with it full circular, now claim that the militan authriaties have certain rights
To
the hound which they propose свалдан кут
the aband crament of which they are entitled to compens they would be if
full
ན
facere way i'm the entitled to the land in
It appears to me that the principl put forward is just taquitable. The question is whether the claim is well founded in point of fact.
I gather from the correspondence To the colonial that the land belongs Gost total, panding the final deterne
of th
the scheme for the defence works,
ganden ground
it was let or
wither with a complete restriction as to building
subject to the
form that if the lessee beirth he she the risk of having to tamore
do fo
his building without compensati
he dermed 66
recessary by the Militory authority
47 (see Rear lution of the Ex. Co: yg te
Keaslution Test 1877). This resolution gave rise to dispute between the civil
of military authorities; but finally
the defensive where the schame of
Faked,
it was found
worths. that it cons
no part of
it that
any restriction ofd be plac building
The land in question.
Acending to the Was' offer riw,
the case
is like
in cotwith a
private person has an easement - a right to light rain
another for land
The band m
of which he sets compensation. of their scheme of defence had been
plifferent, they might have purtidien building. As it is, the land is
longestionally
now that the restriction
5 building
is commoned then it comes have been if
it had continued. Who gets
this?
the benefit of
Sext
chores,
a if
the colonial
it does that appear
me inequitable that it should be debited (on the principle of the
firendan of 1894) with quivalent
OLA
ut to the benefit derived
the removal of the restriction. I should suggest that this vice but before the colonial foot before
4
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.