asked the Minister for Lands if he will state what steps he intends to take to restore to Mr. James Roughneen, Brownhall, Balla, County Mayo, the free use of the right of way which he formerly enjoyed through the lands of Mr. Dan McEllin; also, if he will state the purchase price paid to Mr. McEllin for the right of way, the cost of erecting fences and gates on the right of way and the cost of metalling it.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Right of Way to Mayo Lands.
The answer to the first part of the question is that it is proposed to take no action in this matter. In 1939, the Land Commission made an Order conferring a right of way on Mr. Roughneen over the lands of Mr. McEllin and it is a matter for Mr. Roughneen to protect his interests in the right of way.
The answer to the second part of the question is that the right of way was reserved in conjunction with the acquisition by the Land Commission of portion of Mr. McEllin's lands and separate compensation was not paid for it. The work of fencing, erection of gates and metalling of roadway was undertaken as part of the improvement scheme connected with the division of the lands and the expenditure on these items is not separately recorded.
As Mr. Roughneen's holding is in the middle of Mr. McEllin's farm, will the Minister state if he proposes to restore to Mr. Roughneen the free use of this right of way and the right to maintain the fences bounding that right of way, which the Land Commission erected seven or eight years ago?
The Land Commission has given him a right of way over the lands of Mr. McEllin. He is entitled to it and it is a matter for himself to protect his own interests. It is not a matter for the Land Commission.
He has tried to protect his own interests but the court has taken away his rights. Will the Minister state by what means the legal rights of such people are protected or how they are laid down by the legal section of his Department?
I understand he is protected by the courts.
The court has turned him down by giving a decision against him, due, I believe, to the very bad legal drafting of the agreement between the Land Commission and Mr. Roughneen.
I do not understand how the court could have turned him down because he has the right of way given to him by the Land Commission.
The Land Commission erected the fences and Mr. McEllin's cattle knocked them down. The court refused to allow Mr. Roughneen to repair or maintain these fences. He is in the position, therefore, that he cannot use the right of way because, if he does, his stock will stray off the right of way on to Mr. McEllin's farm and he will be sued for trespass. What kind of bungling is that?
There was no bungling.
It was bad bungling.
I think the question should be put to the Minister for Justice.
I put it to the Minister for Lands.
The Minister for Lands has answered that the man concerned has a clear right of way given him by the Land Commission.
That right of way has been taken away from him by the court, due to the faulty drafting of the agreement between the Land Commission and Mr. Roughneen and to the bungling of some legal man in the Minister's Department.
He has a right of way.
That has been taken away from him, and the Minister is aware that it has been taken away.
Is the Minister aware that a decree by the court has prohibited this tenant from using this right of way?
I am not so aware.
The fences protecting the right-of-way have been knocked down and the cattle were trespassing on Mr. McEllin's farm and Mr. McEllin has informed Mr. Roughneen that he will sue him for trespass, while at the same time he prevents Mr. Roughneen from repairing the fences to keep the cattle from trespassing.
I am not aware of that.
Will the Minister state why the Land Commission goes to the expense of spending £270 or so in erecting fences, which nobody has the right to maintain, and erecting gates which the owner of the land has taken away and stated are his? Does the Minister stand over that conduct?