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
374
then comes ord. 25 of 1891 which by 5 12, amended 568 of 15 of 1889 by providing that an annual
shamed be pay ath for all
Cams hurt
encroachments
under Hut lectin
to Rame
by pois shares I empowering the forcimer in Commit regulations for the exechin &maintenance of per suharves
The amounts of rents changathe is scheduled to this admerne.
peer pahaut annen
da
land
of disturbance.
Its uns pepond Wraisi these renti do not object to thin stifiulate for compensation in The pecuple of giving such compensation
admitted
LAM
шал
the Praya Reclamation ordinance of 1889 (16 of 1889) see
as adi
$7
abechsely
a sum of $150,000 for compensation to overs & ccenfin of whares operation, this
a
the reclamation
}
Mshucas
I have reconsidered this question with ur Wilson & I have really
no doubt that under
the Existing law no
right
to compensation
by the
for to pier owharf holders removed Got can be said toxist. Under there
Whether circumstance, I leave it to you
We need
trouble the £0. One point has been
raised by Mr Johnson - viz whether theme meynst be fiens &wharves which not under the provisions
Iwere constructed
Jay ordinance
and
Com
on will remember
7
19ov
4.
recent can's 7 [vil sali out the mode of anency compensation from. this fand to lessees who do not assent ( in termons of H x 1 ] enter in Gagraments with the fort!"
The Governor says thout the piers sabores an not likes the required en
reft for Praya uclamation, which is already provided for by
We Tartmentine ordinance
tanks shelter
enas s
Thine! sumander the right of ordering remorat williant compensation,
which and make at prese
ind
Gomes be
mi otter cases
egu
table
Personally I think with the tag that confersation
as unarmy of the structure, can settle the ques
much the better. Aktygraphi
are erfenire 1 & if an when going to the Lo.
2,
afly asked for.
wished
I think we
Jo
11FD
10/10 aus
(AF)10
Win
has better ask the LO whether on the Construction of the Adinances compensation is required
I tell the frowns we
dong
JMC
10026
M ཆ་
(s)-12435-2000-1-93
19281-3000-7-99
& in telegraphing
to the
have been
we might ask this as it is possibl that prescriptive rights might acquires though this is most importable. If these persons owning pièes owhawe legre, ight to compensation I think they have mnal night, and they
knowk se
have no
I have erected them with fuccented the reciputin
of the law. The monk difficult
་
though
of the principle of compensation the Praga reclamation ordinance, t there the compensation cons
the wharf
or fièr
owner
contingent on
contubulisto
the costry the scheme though the forum had former to give it at his absolute discretion. On the whirl I am inclined
compensate.
ABC
100st
We had better not give away
which we possess.
nights which we
Answer by telegraph daysong
legal
In reply to your despatch No 257
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.