CO129-377 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [5] — Page 275

woj.

(g)

267

an Agreement previously arrived at, the entire cost of

the reclamation works and the entire risk was borne by

the front section holders. The Government took no

direct benefit. The back section holders contributed

nothing; took no risks; and, from the nature of their

property, stood in most cases to gain rather than to

lose by the enlargement of the town. In this case the

Government is doing the work itself and will take the whole benefit, but declines to pay for any of the

damage the work will do to back section holders and

for part of the damage to the front section holders i.e.

damage otherwise than by interference with access to

the sea, and justifies its action by the false analogy

of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance.

Because the Chief Justice in the Judgment in Action No.

6 of 1908 between His Excellency the Governor of Hong

Kong and Chu Ping held that even under the Praya Re-

clamation Scheme the holders of back sections would

have been entitled to have had their rights to compensa-

tion very seriously considered by the Government and

that it was "a very serious question and one not to be

so easily assumed adversely to the back section holders

as seems to have been done by the Government in this

case",

-4m