TNAG-0614-FCO40-762-Visit-by-delegation-from-Heung-Yee-Kuk-(Rural-Consultive-Cou-1977 — Page 42

-

- 18 -

consideration in the mind of the prospective buyer. To exclude

it by Section 12 (c) so that compensation is assessed not on its

"market value" seems to us on principle to be wrong and

repugnant to sub-section (d) which requires the value of the

land resumed to be "taken to be the amount which the land if

sold on the open market might be expected to realize". Based

on this provision, the Land Resumption Board has for the past

few decades awarded compensation on an artificial basis by

capitalising the notional tenant's rental for the land resumed

on the assumption that it is rented purely for agricultural

use

irrespective of the locality of the land resumed or, indeed,

its suitability for agriculture. In practice a great number of

cases are settled by the Crown's offer of compensation before

the matter is referred to the Land Resumption Board (and now the

Lands Tribunal). The compensation offered by the Crown for

agricultural land resumed 25 years ago was about 30 cents a

square foot.

This has increased gradually over the years to about $3.00 per square foot plus an ex gratia payment to make

the compensation up to $10.00 per square foot in 1975/6.

47.

The acceptance of compensation by landowners should

not be construed in every case as an expression of satisfaction

with the amount offered. One should bear in mind that in the

majority of cases one is dealing with ignorant and (often)

illiterate villagers on whose mind the paternalistic influence

of the District Office is very considerable.

48.

When Section 12 (c) was enacted in 1922, its injustice

to the inhabitants of the New Territories was probably then not