Mr. Koo Ming Kown said: “This case exposes the Hong Kong SAR Government’s failure to deliver the promise of the Basic Law to protect the personal property rights. The Company’s land has been trespassed on and used for unlawful purposes for over 14 years despite our sustained legal efforts to recover it. Most indignantly, the Company has been wrongfully accused by the Government of unauthorized change of land use, which is unlawful. The Government has been explicitly informed that the land was occupied unlawfully by a third party. To avoid being held accountable, the Government even approved unconnected parties’ application for permission to use the land they did not own and to change the user of the land. The Government’s act (1) is a serious violation of our rights to private property as enshrined by the Basic Law, and demonstrates its failure to fulfill its duty in accordance with the Basic Law; and (2) indicates its failure to take action against the true offenders of unauthorized land use.”
The unlawfully occupied parcel of land in question, Lot No. 2920 in Demarcation District No. 102 (the “Land”) located near San Tin Highway in Ngau Tam Mei, Yuen Long, has a site area of approximately 8,700 square feet and is designated as agricultural land. In 1993, the Company received a statutory notice from the Planning Department accusing it of unauthorized change of user of the Land, at which time it came to the Company’s attention that the Land had been unlawfully occupied prior to April 1993.
Upon receipt of this notice, the Company initiated proceedings against the occupier. On June 17, 1993 the Company obtained a court order to stop the unlawful occupation and to recover the Land. This order was ignored by the occupier and so, on March 3, 1995, the Company’s agents, together with the bailiff, attempted to enter the Land. The party was met with violence by a group of men displaying a hostile and intimidating attitude, and was thereby physically prevented from entering the Land. The bailiff was unable to execute the court order. In view of this violent trespass, the Company sought the assistance of the Hong Kong Police Force, who refused to take action on the basis that the case was a civil dispute over private property.
The Company later discovered that an application had been filed with the Town Planning Board by an unconnected party for permission to change the user of the Land to that of container trailer storage. Although the unconnected party did not have the Company’s authorization, the Town Planning Board made a contradictory decision to approve this application on September 14, 1994. The Company then asked the Town Planning Board how permission could be granted to an applicant who had no connection whatsoever with the Company. The Town Planning Board replied that the relevant Ordinance did not require an applicant to be the owner of the land, and that the consent of the owner was not a relevant consideration in granting permission. The Company found this unacceptable, but the Town Planning Board later informed the Company that as no unauthorized land use was detected at further site inspection, the Town Planning Board refused to follow up on the matter. The Government turned a blind eye to the problems, and found excuses to evade its duty to protect the citizens’ property and rights.
Proceedings then ensued resulting in the successful demarcation of the Land on May 22, 1996. The Company then requested the Director of Planning not to support any application from a third party for change of user of the Land. However, the Director of Planning insisted that there was no statutory requirement that an owner of land be notified of an application by an occupier for a change of land user. Although the temporary permission previously granted by the Town Planning Board expired in August 1996, the Land continued to be unlawfully used for container storage purposes.
The Planning Department has not approved any further applications for a change of land user of the Land, but it has in the subsequent few years approved similar applications for change of land user relating to the adjoining plots for container storage purposes. This has indirectly acted in support of the operation of container storage in the neighbourhood, and encouraged unlawful occupation of the Company’s Land. As a victim in this case, the Company had been helpless in terms of securing property protection.
In May 2006, the Director of Planning made a fresh accusation that the Land was being used by the Company for the unauthorized purposes of container storage. The Director of Planning even stated that it was the Company’s responsibility to ensure that the Land was not used for unauthorized purposes, although the unauthorized use was committed by trespassers. This accusation has aggravated the pains of the victim, the Company.
Mr. Koo said: “It is illogical for the Government to hold all land owners responsible for any unauthorized land use, and at the same time grants permission to applicants to change the user of land use without the consent of the land owners. The Government never protects the property rights of the land owners according to the law, nor has it taken action to combat and curb the unlawful activities of unauthorized land use. Although, after repeated requests and complaints, amendments were finally made to the Town Planning Ordinance in June 2005 to make the owner’s consent a pre-condition for the granting of permission for a change of land use, we feel that the Government has done too little, too late. What the Government is doing now does not effectively prevent the trespass to the land of the legitimate owners, and has indirectly encouraged the trespassers to obtain title of the land by way of adverse possession.
We believe our case to be only the tip of the iceberg. The unlawful occupation of the land and the unauthorized change of user of the land in the New Territories are, indeed, very serious. Nevertheless, the Government has been turning a blind eye to this situation and has not enforced its rights of enforcement actions against the unlawful occupiers to protect the personal property of the citizens according to the Basic Law. Instead, this responsibility has been foisted upon the helpless land owners themselves. As a listed entity, Nam Tai is accountable to its shareholders and has therefore exerted relentless legal efforts to recover its property. However, these efforts have failed to secure the lawful repossession of the Land. We believe that less resourceful citizens will feel even more helpless, and could become the scapegoat of illegal activities.”
In December 2006, the Company made another attempt, without success, to enter the Land for surveying purposes. It then made a further request to the Director of Planning, supported by aerial photos and a surveyor’s report, to take action against the trespassers whom the Company believes belong to the same group of people. Such filings and subsequent meeting with the Town Planning Board did not result in any fruitful outcome.
Mr. Koo emphasized that, “the trespass to the Land has persisted for more than 14 years. I wish to bring to the attention of the media, by way of this press conference, the seriousness of the unlawful occupation of the lands in the New Territories and the issue of property rights failing to be protected by law. We hereby lodge a serious complaint against the Government about this issue. I urge the Government to see to the problems and demonstrate strong governance and respect the Basic Law by protecting the rights of the citizens and the investors. Failing this, the Company will be compelled to continue to devote tremendous time and resources to safeguarding its own rights.”
Issued by : Through :
Nam Tai Trading Company Limited
t6.communications limited
Jenny Lee or Angus Ho
email: enquiry@t6pr.com
URL : http://www.t6pr.com