Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Mar 1943

Vol. 89 No. 12

Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Longford Estate.

asked the Minister for Lands if he is aware that a notice dated the 12th January, 1938, under Section 23 of the Land Act of 1927 was served on George W.K. Gilliland, Barry House, Colehill, County Longford, by the Land Commission informing him that they had decided to acquire the lands of Killeendowd containing 183 acres (Folio 2719, Record Number U.8480) and that no action has been taken since that year; and if he will now state (a) whether the proceedings have been withdrawn, or (b) whether it is proposed to withdraw them, and (c) whether Mr. Gilliland has been informed of the intentions of the Land Commission or the date on which acquisition will take place.

The Land Commission decided to institute proceedings for the acquisition of the lands of Killeendowd on the Gilliland estate and a notice of this decision was issued to the owner on 12th January, 1938, pursuant to Section 23 of the Land Act, 1927. The Land Commission have not, so far, taken any further steps in the matter and the case (with many others) is now governed by the emergency restrictions which prevent the undertaking of fresh commitments except in special circumstances.

There is no question of withdrawing proceedings which have not yet been instituted or of communicating further with the owner at present.

Is the Minister aware that these lands were inspected prior to the elections of 1933, 1937 and 1938, that another election is now due and that it would be advisable to have them again inspected, applicants interviewed and promises made that they will get bits of the land, even if they are to be left in the same way until another election comes around? The Minister has not replied to that question. Will he say if Gilliland can now sell this farm, if he so desires?

That is dealt with in another answer. The fact that he may sell will not interfere with the power of the Land Commission to continue these proceedings when circumstances permit, if the Land Commission so desire.

Does the Minister consider that it is fair to serve a farmer with notice of intention to acquire as far back as January, 1938, and that the estate should since be left hanging, like Mahomet's coffin, in the air. He does not know whether or not he is the owner or what he can do.

There are a number of similar cases. A notice was issued to the owner intimating that the Land Commission, after inspection, had decided to proceed with the acquisition, and informing him that the notices prescribed by the Land Act would be published and served on him in due course. In the meantime, owing to the emergency, it was found necessary to curtail the operations of the Land Commission, and, at the moment, I cannot say when the proceedings are likely to be continued.

The notice was served in January, 1938, and the emergency did not arise until September, 1939. Does the Minister consider that this is a proper way to treat the farming community, seeing that he has stated that there are other cases like this case?

Will the Minister say if he considers that it is good national policy to serve a resumption notice and take no further action, with the result that the Land Commission continues to conacre the land and destroy its fertility? Does he not think that the resumption notice ought to be executed right away, or that the farm ought to be left the property of the tenant? Does not the Minister appreciate that the moment a tenant is served with a resumption notice he has no further interest in the farm, and that he will get what he can out of it while the going is good? Is that good national policy?

I cannot accept Deputy Hughes' interpretation of the position as the owner obviously has his rights to appear before the Land Commissioners and also to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, in the event of his being dissatisfied with the price. I am not at all in agreement with him that the owner is not interested in the matter merely because a resumption notice has been served. That would mean that all lands in respect of which such notices have been served were automatically taken over. We know that a certain legal procedure has to be followed and there is no certainty whatever, when the Land Commission institute proceedings, after they have served notice, that in fact the land will be ultimately acquired.

With regard to Deputy MacEoin's point, the position in 1938 was that, owing to a legal decision, all operations for the acquisition of land were held up for a considerable time until amending legislation was brought in. By the time this amending legislation had become law and the necessary rules of court made to enable it to be brought into effect, the war had begun, and all proceedings were then held up, except those which were well advanced. The matter is under constant consideration, but I fear I cannot make any promise at present that the Land Commission will continue proceedings at any early date.

Top
Share