Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Apr 1951

Vol. 125 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Lands.

asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission have considered the propriety of acquiring the lands, approximately 260 acres in area, of the O'Flaherty-Johnston estate, Kilmurrey, Inishmore, for the purpose of relieving the acute congestion on the island; and, if so, with what result.

The Land Commission have instituted proceedings for the acquisition of these lands.

asked the Minister for Lands whether he is aware that, notwithstanding Section 5 of the Land Act, 1950, the Land Commission are, in many cases of compulsory acquisition, offering prices far below that which the owners would obtain in the free market; and, if so, whether he will indicate the basis on which the Land Commission arrive at the prices in such cases.

I am not aware that the position is as stated by the Deputy in the first part of the question. That being so, the second part of the question does not arise.

Is the Minister aware that representations have been made to his Department by quite a number of landowners whose land is about to be acquired for division among local people and that their general complaint is that if they disposed of their lands on the free market, they would get much more for them than they are getting from the Land Commission? Would the Minister undertake to have these complaints investigated so that those people might get the benefit of the relevant section of the recent Land Act?

Is the Minister aware that there is a case pending in Monaghan where a man purchased a holding of 32 acres in 1923 for £448 and the Land Commission now want him to give them the holding for £370, a reduction of £78 after 28 years and after he has improved the land considerably? Does the Minister think that just? I thought it was decided when the Bill was going through this House that people were entitled to market value for their holdings but here that is not the case. Why should this man give his land to the Land Commission for £78 less than he bought it 28 years ago when the value of land has been enhanced and when he has improved it?

To deal with Deputy Mrs. Rice first, if the price is less at the present time than that which the owner paid for the farm, the land has probably deteriorated since.

On the contrary.

I am not trying to defend them. This is one of the excepted matters for the commissioners. If their offer is less than the value the tribunal is there. If the Deputy will give me particulars of the case I will have it looked into.

Is it not the definite policy of the Government to pay full market value for lands about to be acquired for division?

This is not a matter of Government policy. The law this House has laid down is that the Land Commission will pay market value for all land which they either acquire or resume. Every person who appeals, I take it, is dissatisfied with the price offered, but it is silly for any person inside this House or outside it to say that he could get a better price on the open market than the Land Commission is giving him. How does he know when he did not sell it and test the open market?

In the event of a citizen having a complaint under Section 5 of the Land Act, 1950, what machinery has the Minister at his disposal to have it thoroughly investigated?

This House handed over the question of the investigation of complaints and prices to the Land Commissioners. In the commission there is ample machinery; there is a court of appeal presided over by a judge of the High Court, and any person who does not wish to take the price he is getting has ample opportunity to appeal. People as a whole since the passing of the Land Act, 1950, have been thoroughly satisfied. There may be people who think they should have got more, but by and large, there is complete and general satisfaction with the working of Section 5.

I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Will the Minister say how the Land Commission fix market value now?

I have no objection to the question being raised on the Adjournment, but I should like to point out that this is a matter in which I have no function whatever. It is one of the matters which this House took out of my functions.

Top
Share