TNAG-0502-FCO40-567-Petitions-for-reinstatement-of-Crown-land-permits-in-Hong-Ko-1974 — Page 4

C.S. 84

XCR(74)199

RESTRICTED

2

interviewed by Tenancy Inquiry Bureau staff in May 1965 that she could give no definite date when compensation could be paid to the tenants. In the circumstances, The Colonial Treasurer Incorporated, exercising his power of sale under section 12(3) of the Demolished Buildings (Re-development of Sites) Ordinance, instructed Messrs Helen A. Lo and Company, Solicitors, to dispose of the property by auction. The latter advised against this course, however, since the expected sale proceeds would not cover the balance of premium, interest thereon, tenants' compensation and the auction and legal costs. In light of this advice and the fact that the second instalment of premium, which was due on 23rd June 1965, had not been paid, the Crown re- entered the lot on 20th January 1966. Thereafter, the former tenants were paid ex-gratia compensation by the Crown.

4

On 29th July 1974, eight years after the expiry of the statutory 6-month period from the registration of the Memorial of Re-entry, a petition under sections 4 and 5 of the Crown Rights (Re-entry) Ordinance was forwarded on behalf of Madam YEE Lai-ying by Messrs Woo, Kwan, Lee and Lo, Solicitors, seeking extension of time within which to file a petition and relief against the re-entry of KIL No 9232. A copy of the petition is annexed. The petition points out that Mr YU Wo-lung, the grantee, died on 11th December 1970 and that the petitioner is his sole executrix and beneficiary. It seeks relief against re-entry on the following grounds:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

the original lot was surrendered to the Crown in 1964 for a regrant of the same property;

the petitioner changed her address in early 1965 and emigrated to Canada in 1966, entrusting the management of the property to a Mr YU Hung-hup, and neither the grantee nor the petitioner was aware that the outstanding premium had not been paid;

neither the grantee nor the petitioner was aware of the re-entry, the latter learning of it only on returning to Hong Kong in August 1973; and

the petitioner is of substantial financial means and is prepared to pay up outstanding sums due to the Crown.

5

In considering the petition, it should be noted that the original designation of the lot mentioned therein is incorrect and should be sub-section 1 of Section B of Kowloon Inland Lot No 447. As regards the substance of the petition the following points are relevant:

RESTRICTED