XN000022-1982-06-02 — Page 27

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1982

26

HE SAID ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR LAND RESUMED UNDER THE BILL WAS BASED ON PROVISIONS OF THE CROWN LANDS RESUMPTION ORDINANCE AND COMPENSATION WAS PAYABLE TO SUCH PERSONS AS WERE ENTITLED TO CLAIM UNDER THAT ORDINANCE.

+THERE HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN A LONG-DRAWN DISPUTE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND OWNERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OVER THE CONTROVERSIAL SECTION 12(C) OF THAT ORDINANCE WHICH PROVIDES NO COMPENSATION 'IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPECTANCY OR PROBABILITY OF THE GRANT OR RENEWAL OR CONTINUANCE, BY THE CROWN OR BY ANY PERSON, IF ANY LICENCE, PERMISSION, LEASE OR PERMIT WHATSOEVER".

+HOWEVER IN ORDER TO SOFTEN THE FULL IMPACT OF SECTION 12(C), GOVERNMENT HAS, BY ADMINISTRATIVE MEANS, BEEN PAYING EX-GRATIA PAYMENTS TO OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SO RESUMED,+ HE SAID.

MR YEUNG ALSO URGED THAT THE SECRETARY FOR LANDS AND WORKS SHOULD, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE, CONSULT LOCAL PEOPLE SUCH AS THE DISTRICT BOARD AND RURAL COMMITTEE BEFORE AUTHOR ISING A PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE IN CARRYING OUT MINOR WORKS.

THE HON JOHN SWAINE, IN HIS SPEECH, COMMENTED ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL.

HE SAID THE GOVERNOR-IN-COUNCIL'S POWER TO REFER THE PLAN AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD WAS AN IMPORTANT PROVISION BECAUSE IT WOULD ENSURE A PROPER HEARING OF OBJECTIONS.

+ IT IS NOTE-WORTHY THAT THE POWER OF REFERRAL APPLIES EVEN WHERE THERE IS NO TOWN PLAN, AND THE CHANGE THEREFORE GOES FURTHER THAN THE TOWN PLANNING ORDINANCE ITSELF ENVISAGES, HE SAID.

ON THE PROPOSAL TO DELETE THE PROVISION (CLAUSE 3 OF THE SCHEDULE) WHICH WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE IF THE CLAIMANT OWNED OTHER LAND WHICH APPRECIATED IN VALUE BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED ROAD WORKS, MR SWAINE SAID OBJECTION WAS TAKEN TO THIS CLAUSE BECAUSE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION WAS MADE FOR INCREASING RESUMPTION COMPENSATION WHERE THE CLAIMANT'S OTHER LAND HAD DEPRECIATED IN VALUE.

HE ADDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A GENERAL SCHEME FOR IMPOSING A LEVY ON OWNERS WHOSE LAND APPRECIATED AS A RESULT OF ROAD WORKS, THE EFFECT OF THE CLAUSE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO IMPOSE AN INDIRECT LEVY ON THE OWNER WHOSE LAND HAD BEEN RESUMED.

THE COMMITTEE STAGE AND THE THIRD READING OF THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED TO THE NEXT MEETING.