Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 1958

Vol. 169 No. 7

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Allotment of Mayo Commonage.

asked the Minister for Lands if he will state the date on which a commonage was allotted to tenants in Ballina, near Hollymount, County Mayo, the names of the allottees, the area of the commonage allotted, and the shares held by each allottee; whether portion of this commonage was reallotted to others at a later date, and, if so, the date of such reallotment; and whethe annuities were charged on (a) the firs allotments and (b) the second allotments, and, if so, the amounts of such annuities.

I presume the Deputy is referring to a commonage containing 144 acres in the townland of Ballina. The position here is that following the rearrangement, between 1936 and 1946, of a number of holdings in this district, in the townlands of Lecarrow, Lisheenmanus, Ballina and Mweelis, it was proposed to give to each tenant with his rearranged holding a 1/22nd share in the Ballina commonage. For a start, on 28th March, 1952, ten tenants in the townlands of Lecarrow and Lisheenmanus were included in a vesting order, which provided for the allocation of 1/22nd shares in the commonage to them. These tenants objected to the vesting order, however, on the grounds that tenants in Ballina and Mweelis had no rights to shares in the commonage. Following the hearing of the objection by the Lay Commissioners, the matter was further investigated and on 31st August, 1956, a new vesting order was made in respect of all the holdings involved, allocating the commonage as follows: (a) an undivided 1/11th share of 22 acres and an undivided 1/22nd share of 122 acres to each of the tenants in Lecarrow and Lisheenmanus and (b) an undivided 1/22nd share in 122 acres to each of the tenants in Ballina and Mweelis.

The tenants in Lecarrow and Lisheenmanus objected to this vesting order also but the objection was disallowed by the Lay Commissioners in June, 1957. An appeal was subsequently lodged and the matter is at present awaiting the reserved judgment of the Appeal Tribunal.

Shares in the commonage form part of the holdings concerned and separate annuities are not assessed thereon.

The Minister did not answer one part of the question I put to him. That is, was part of the commonage allotted in 1936 reallotted in 1940 to different tenants without the consent of the first allottees?

I cannot say that from the information that has been supplied to me. If the Deputy would like to ask a further question, I shall communicate with him.

I have included that in the question here and the Minister has not answered it. The Minister will find if he looks it up, that I asked for that information, "whether portion of this commonage was reallotted to others at a later date ..."

Different groups of tenants objected to the vesting order and it is now a matter before the Appeal Tribunal. The whole question is sub judice.

I do not want to touch on the part of the case that is sub judice. I am merely asking for information that must be in the possession of the Land Commission. Is the Minister aware that portion of the commonage which was allotted in 1936 was reallotted by mistake in 1946 and that the inspector who did that had no authority to reallot anything other than lands in the possession of the Land Commission and that he allotted land that was not in the possession of the Land Commission?

I am not aware that is how the matter arose, but if the Deputy will read the detailed reply that he will receive I think he will find that I have given all the information requested. If he needs more I shall be glad to supply it.