asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries if he will state the reason why the Land Commission has decided not to institute any proceedings under Section 22 (2) of the Land Act, 1923, against John A. Lewis, owner of an estate, Co. Galway, and his agent, Henry H. Lewis, for having furnished false particulars regarding the untenanted land on the estate (Form E.), in view of the fact that the Land Commission has already decided that the particulars were false.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Co. Galway Estate.
Mr. Jordan
As the Deputy has already been informed, the Land Commission have not instituted and do not propose to institute proceedings under Section 22 (2) of the Land Act, 1923, in the matter referred to, as the circumstances of the case would not justify such proceedings.
Mr. Jordan
asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries if he will furnish a list of the parcels of land allotted to tenants and others on resumed holding No. 19, estate of John A. Lewis, Co. Galway (Record S. 1990), together with the area and proposed annuity of each parcel.
A list of allottees on the lands referred to is being prepared and will be sent to the Deputy.
Mr. Jordan
asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries if he will state on what date the Land Commission discovered that the file of the late Congested Districts Board relating to the (now) John A. Lewis Estate, Co. Galway, Record No. S.1990, was missing from the Office of the Land Commission; and if he will further state what steps the Land Commission have taken, or propose to take, regarding the recovery of the missing documents.
The Deputy would appear to have been misinformed. The file relating to proceedings initiated by the late Congested Districts Board for the purchase of the estate of the late Mrs. Hannah Lewis, Co. Galway, is not missing from the Office of the Land Commission. Along with many old files of the Board, it was transferred to the Land Commission on the Board's dissolution in 1923.
It is true it was temporarily mislaid at the time that I answered a previous question by the Deputy in regard to this estate on 26th March, 1930—it is not an easy matter to lay hands at short notice on particular documents amongst the mass of old papers relative to the Board's estates, and therefore I informed the Deputy at that time that the Land Commission were not aware of the contents of the Board's letter of 10th June, 1914, referred to by him. I find now that this letter, which was written by the Board to the solicitors acting for the owner of the estate, stated that the Board had decided not to issue an offer for the estate "unless the owners included in the sale freed and discharged from all tenancies," certain specified lands, some of which, I understand, were held by Messrs. J.A. Lewis and H.H. Lewis. It is incorrect to say (as the Deputy asserted in his previous question of 26th March, 1930) that the Board "refused to recognise" these tenancies. What the Board desired was the acquisition of such lands in the owner's occupation as well as those in the occupation of J.A. Lewis and H.H. Lewis as would be necessary for the relief of congestion in the neighbourhood. The owner refused to comply, and the Board accordingly decided not to make an offer.
Mr. Jordan
asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries if he will state the reason why the Land Commission have not replied to a registered letter from Henry Murray, of Woodford, Co. Galway, dated April 22nd, 1930, and asking to be informed as to the cost of copies of the resumption notices served on Henry H. Lewis regarding holdings Nos. 19, 27 and 28, estate of J.A. Lewis, Co. Galway (Record No. S. 1990).
Mr. Henry Murray was informed by letter dated 17th instant that the cost of obtaining copies of the resumption notices would be 1/- per copy.