asked the Minister for Lands the date and terms of the purchase of the Palmer Estate townlands of Beltra, Kilgarriff and Muckinagh, County Mayo; if the fishing rights on that portion of Beltra lake were specifically mentioned in the deed of sale and were purchased; if so, the price of such interest; if the fishing rights were reserved to the Land Commission or allotted to the tenants; and the date of publication in Iris Oifigiuil of the vesting of the Palmer tenants in these townlands.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Purchase of Mayo Estate.
21.
The townlands mentioned and portion of Beltra Lough were included in the very extensive Palmer Estate, totalling some 93,000 acres, which vested in the Congested Districts Board on the 29th March, 1923. The purchase price of the entire estate was £292,000.
The fishing rights in this portion of Beltra Lough passed to the Congested Districts Board pursuant to a general provision of the Vesting Order, without apportionment of purchase price, or reference to particular lakes.
These fishing rights were subsequently reserved to the Land Commission. The relevant Vesting Orders were published in Iris Oifigiúil on 5th August, 1938, 19th August, 1949; 24th January, 1950; 27th March, 1953, and 20th July, 1956.
Would I be correct in saying that the Congested Districts Board and the Land Commission assumed that the fishing rights in that portion of the lake passed to them on purchase of the estate, when in fact they did not, and were not specifically mentioned in the purchase agreement?
The Deputy is wrong in assuming any such thing. They have passed to the Land Commission and their predecessors under the legal definitions contained in the Land Acts and there has been no suggestion that the title of the Land Commission to this particular portion of these waters was ever in question or can be questioned now.
Would the Minister explain why a considerable time ago on the occasion of the vesting of these tenants an official from the Land Commission called them all together and asked them to surrender their fishing rights on that portion of the lake prior to vesting?
There is no evidence before me to suggest that any such statement was made by any official. The position appears to be from the information before me that this portion of the lake has, in fact, been leased continuously from the Land Commission and their predecessors since 1919 and their title since that time has never been put in question by anybody.
The fact that the Land Commission have let the fishing rights and have taken a considerable sum for the letting each year does not mean that they have title to it.
The title to different portions of this lake has been disputed on the other side and the tenants on this particular side of the lake were not unaware of the position there over all these years.