asked the Minister for Lands if he will state the circumstances in which the lands of Mrs. Esther Fallon, Aughavannagh, County Wicklow, have been acquired by the Land Commission.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Wicklow Lands.
77.
The lady in question agreed in February, 1951, to sell an area of 78 acres together with an undivided one-half share of 224 acres at Aghavannagh, Co. Wicklow, to the Forestry Division of my Department which owns the other half-share. She declined to complete the sale and proceedings were taken against her for specific performance of her contract. Following a High Court Order she executed a Deed of Assignment of the lands in April, 1957, but she refused to hand over the lands to the Department and a further High Court Order for possession was obtained against her in March, 1958. She refused to comply with this Order and possession was taken of the lands on 15th October, 1959, by due process of law.
Is the Minister aware that this lady denies, in fact, that she signed away the 70 acres of her small holding? She was under the impression that she had signed away the 112 acres of hills. Why should she sign away her holding of 40 acres of arable land and 30 acres of pasture land? Surely it is a new policy in the Forestry Department to acquire compulsorily a small holding and dispossess the lady and her children? I am sure the Minister does not approve of that?
I want to say that this matter has been going on since 1951. I have no doubt from reading this file that the lady did, in fact, sign voluntarily to the Forestry Department and transferred these lands to the Forestry Department. In fact, the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Blowick, who was Minister for Lands, instituted proceedings for a specific performance against her.
The Minister should not follow that policy. Like myself, the Minister is familiar with small holdings. The fact that some other Minister acted unjustly towards this woman is no justification for the Minister carrying on that policy. This matter has been going on since 1951. When she found out that her holding was sold, she denied it to her solicitor. She appeals to the Minister not to dispossess her of her holding. She has no objection to giving the hill but she objects to giving the 40 acres of arable and the 30 acres of pasture land. I appeal to the Minister, who understands the position, to waive the clause and not dispossess this woman of her holding.
While what I have said is true, I want to assure the Deputy that she did, in fact, willingly transfer these lands. I have made a further suggestion to my officials if this lady will, even at this late day, see sense for the re-transfer of a certain portion of these lands. If she does not, the law will have to take its course.
The law has been taking its course since 1951. This lady has no law. Surely it is not the policy to take compulsorily arable land for afforestation?
I again want to assert that this was not a compulsory acquisition at all. This was a voluntary deal.
Could the Minister make inquiries to see whether or not a mistake was made by the lady in the amount she transferred? It seems to me that that is all Deputy Everett has in mind. If so, the Minister will see that Deputy Everett's case is correct and that some consideration should be shown.
Give her back her farm.
I do not think the lady made any mistake.
She disagreed with the solicitor she had then employed.