TNAG-0614-FCO40-762-Visit-by-delegation-from-Heung-Yee-Kuk-(Rural-Consultive-Cou-1977 — Page 30

- 6 -

the occupiers of land in the New Territories would be

trespassers after the date fixed by notice in the Gazette

(which was, in fact, 23rd July 1900) unless such occupation

was authorized by grant. It does not say that such grant

might be subject to such unilateral "covenants" as the Crown

chose to impose.

14.

We now turn to examine the provisions of the Block

Crown Leases in detail to see whether they support the Crown's

contention that, except where the description of a particular

Lot or Lots in the Schedule happens to be "House" or the like,

the owner is prohibited from converting it into building use

without the consent of the Crown.

15.

According to the Block Crown Lease it is land

which is "expressed to be demised as agricultural or garden

ground" by the Lease which is prohibited from being converted

"into use for building purposes" without an appropriate licence.

Land not so demised is presumably not restricted as to use for

building purposes. But no Block Crown Lease purports to demise

any land as agricultural or garden ground. By the words

of demise in the Lease the parcel demised is that "set out and

described in the Schedule". What appears in the fourth column

Further confirma-

of the Schedule can only be the description of the Lot at the

time of the survey. This view conforms with the heading of the

fourth column which is "description of Lot".

tion is available from the various descriptions, such as "padi”,

"waste" etc. It cannot be suggested that other crops will not

be grown in place of padi, or that waste land will not be

Page 30Page 31