The State (Hussey) v Irish Land Commission

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McCARTHY J,Henchy J.
• Judgment Date: 13 December 1984
• Neutral Citation: 1984 WJSC-SC 2325
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: 1983 No 299
• Date: 13 December 1984

1984 WJSC-SC 2325

THE SUPREME COURT

Henchy J.

Hederman J.

McCarthy J.

1983 No 299

HUSSEY v IRISH LAND COMMISSION

BRIAN HUSSEY, HENRY B. SISK AND DONALDCHAMBERS

v.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION

Subject Headings:

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION: land acts

1 Judgment of Henchy J.delivered the 13 th December 1984 [HEDERMANCONCURRING]

2 This is an appeal against the disallowance of objections to the compulsory acquisition by the Land Commission of eight holdings. Strictly speaking there were eight separate cases, but as the objectors were the same in all the cases and the submissions of the objectors were likewise the same, they were heard together by the Appeal Tribunal. In that hearing the earlier disallowance by the Lay Commissioners of the objections was affirmed. The present appeal is from that decision of the Appeal Tribunal.

3 The objectors are Brian Hussey, Henry B. Sisk and Donald Chambers. They are directors of a company called Woodland Investments Ltd. That company is engaged in thebusiness of afforestation. The objectors acquired the eight holdings as tenants in common so that they would be planted with trees and developed as commercial forestry by Woodland Investments Ltd.

4 In the case of each of these eight holdings in Co. Leitrim the lands were certified by the Land Commission as being required for the purpose of resale to the persons or bodies mentioned in s. 31 of the Land Act, 1923, as extended by s. 30 of the Land Act, 1950. Such a certificate is frequently referred to as a general certificate, in contradistinction to a special certificate which certifies that the lands are required for the relief of congestion in the immediateneighbourhood.

5 Two main criticisms have been made of the acquisition procedure adopted by the Land Commission in regard to these holdings. Firstly it is contended that the proposed acquisitions are vitiated and rendered invalid because they are inspired by bias or improper motive in that the real purpose of the acquisitions, it is said, is to prevent thelands being afforested by Woodland Investments Ltd. Secondly it is contended that the acquisitions are outside the powers of the Land Commission because the lands are not yet required for the certifiedpurposes.

6 As to the first of those criticisms, it seems reasonable to deduce that the fact that these lands were being purchased by the objectors so that they could be used for afforestation by Woodland Investments Ltd. was a primary part of the reason for acquiring them compulsorily. But it is undeniable that the lands were in any event liable under the relevant statutory provisions for compulsory acquisition. The fact that the statutory reason for acquisition was compounded by an ulterior motive does not invalidate the proposed acquisition when that motive is in keeping with the statutory policy. The statutory policy behind compulsory acquisition, whether on a special or a general certificate, is to benefit those in need of land for agricultural purposes. Afforestation, estimable though it may be as a means of utilisingcertainkinds of land, is inconsistent with normal agricultural use. If these lands are planted with trees, the trees will take about thirty years to mature, by which time, whether the trees will then be cut down or not, the lands will probably have been permanently lost to agriculture in the sense of producing what is normally understood to be agricultural produce. If lands are validly acquired in accordance with the statutory conditions, I do not consider that such acquisition is invalidated if it is carried out under a policy or motivation which looks on afforestation as not being designed to achieve the social and economic aims of the Land Acts.

7 The contention that the proposed acquisitions are outside the acquisition powers of the Land Commission, because they are not yet required for the certified purposes rests primarily on the proven practice of the Land Commission in recent years in Co. Leitrim in regard to similar acquisitions. The evidence given before the Lay Commissioners showed that, by acquisitions under general certificates, the Land Commission had acquired an aggregateof some 3,600 acres of land in Co. Leitrim. The disposal of those lands to the permitted persons or bodies was at the rate of about 300 acres a year. While there was no specific evidence as to when and how the 300 acres in these eight parcels would be disposed of, the Land Commission did not give evidence to rebut the contention of the objectors that these 300 acres will fall to be dealt with in the same way as they have been disposing of the 3,600 acres. It is a reasonable...