引用:

原帖由 kintsun 於 2009-6-23 23:42 發表
以這古堡式建築物的落成時間探討


從地界石的地段號碼推測,此建築於1906年左右落成。


10511211051122

在HK Government Gazette找不到NKIL No 31的土地拍賣時間,但其前後地段的時間約於1906-1907年間左右 ...

Not all lots were put up for sale to the public under gazette. During this transitional period (even the Indian surveys were not completed for drawing up the Block Crown lease), lots were re-granted by private treaty to claimants of title provided they were willing to pay the designated Crown rent. So, I believe that NKIL 31 fell within such category.

If we are able to check the description on the Block Crown lease and better still, the Field Area Statement, we can probably ontain further clues on the origin of the lot.

引用:

原帖由 kintsun 於 2009-6-24 01:09 發表
Thank you for the clues to trace the whereabout of the NKIL No 31.  Do you know where can we get access to these documents: Block Crown Lease and the Field Area Statement?  You know quite a lot about  ...

Brother kintsun: I heartily appreciate your in-depth analysis and fully support your conclusion that the castle was in existence in the year around 1905, although it could have been built much earlier than that.

As for the Block Crown lease (BCL), it can be inspected at the relevant Land Registry (in this case it should be Sai Kung) and we can take photo of the document. It should show the final survey details, depicting the lot number, the area, the class of lot, the registered owner and the Crown rent payable. Assuming that the lot was "re-granted" by claim of title, the details should appear on the Block Crown lease which were finalised in around 1910. We can also request to purchase a Demarcation District (DD) sheet which shows the whereabout of the lot. Normally, location and boundaries of pre-war New Grant lots were also entered onto the DD sheet manually. Field Area Statement, on the other hand, is not a public record and is available to internal parties should there be discrepancies to the details on the BCL and DD Sheet.

The only uncertainty is the confused annotation of the lot. As it was designated as NKIL, it is possible that no record is held at Sai Kung LR, although physically it is in N.T. and falls within the jurisdiction of Sai Kung LD (previously 南約). In that case, we may need to go through the archieves of the central LR in Queensway.

Oh yes, I've been in the land administration field for some decades, both in Govt. and in private practice.

Thanks, Brother Kintsun. This is one of the very first New Territories public auctions (doesn't look like the later "restricted" public auction and I must presume that it is a true public auction. Due to its pre-mature nature, I also cast doubts as to its legality - especially to the terms of the sale. The normal lease in the NT is 99 years from 1 July 1898 less the last 3 days and that aligns with the 99 years NT lease unilaterally recognised by the British. That being the case, the 75 + 75 years lease (common in Kowloon area south of Boundary Street only) extend beyond 1997 and the British Government has no legal authority to grant such lease. So whether the auction has actually taken place is something of interest and worths further investigation.
1. Why there are different types of lots on the list ? Why these land not started with NKIL as they were in the new kowloon boundary since 1899 ?
(My view: The different types of lots covers a variety of nature of subdivided parcels of land in the area. Marine lot is on the sea, or areas that needs to be reclaimed; Farm lot refers to "agricultural land" where no buildings can be allowed, while Inland lot fall on land formed or to be formed by excavation, and I noticed that marine access is granted to one of these inland lots. I have doubts (to be clarified under Sch 5 of Cap. 1) whether these lots fall within the boundaries of "New Kowloon" or "New Territories", but it doesn't really affect the term (99 years, or more accurately 75 + 24 years). In my view, they should be part of NT, where special indiginous rights under the N. T. Ordinance exists.)

2. The place name "Cheung Kwan O" has been in use  rather than "Junk Bay".  People always claimed that "Junk Bay" is the only English name during this time but this proves wrong. (My view: You are absolutely right - misunderstandings by some people)

3. There is a detailed measurement of the 4 directions. This is quite different from other land auction notices. (My view: This is not uncommon and follows the practice of other earlier HK Island / Kowloon auctions. The dimensions were roughly taken from the Sales Plan. In later sales, the detaled dimensions were replaced for simplicity sake as " refer to the plan deposited at District Office, South)

4. Do you think that the money for buying these lands is rather cheap as they are sold in one lot for 75 years and is renewable for another 75 years ? (My view: Yes, it is much lower than the rule in setting an upset price at that tiime -1 cent per square foot for building land and 0.25-0.75 cents per square foot of agricultural land. I'm not sure what led to such low upset price. It could be requirements to form the land, to construct public facilities, or simply, the practice was not established at that time and the sale was merely a test case.)

5. The condition of sale is rather quite detailed and this is also quite a different practice from other land auction notices. (Sorry that I cannot agree that the conditions were complicated. It is regarded as "simple" as by 1905 a standard set of sales conditions were yet to be worked out by Government. For these New Grant lots, Government published in the Gazette from time to time new / revised conditions that governs the sale of land. The more comprehensive G.N. 365 of 1906 was then yet to be published.)

I welcome further discussions on the origin of these lots. Nevertheless, we should try to refocus on Rennie's NKIL 31 - this has also aroused my interest as well.

引用:

原帖由 dorothytiffany 於 2009-6-25 08:03 發表
2. The place name "Cheung Kwan O" has been in use  rather than "Junk Bay".  People always claimed that "Junk Bay" is the only English name during this time but this proves wrong. (My view: You are absolutely right - misunderstandings by some people)

I have further checked some prime source of "Cheung Kwan O" and "Junk Bay", including published names of "recognised villages" (villages that were in existence in 1898 and were entitled to grant of Small House and burial rights, etc) as well as early maps. I can now made some supplements:
1. "Tseung Kwan O"  is the name of a recognised village and its name appears in various documents and maps;
2. The area of water near Tseung Kwan O has been named as "Chung Kwan O" (earliest maps), "Tseung Kwan O", "Junk Bay", or "Tseung Kwan O(Junk Bay)".  Therefore, the misunderstanding that the bay was originally known as "Junk Bay" cannot stand.

引用:

原帖由 竹園BB 於 2009-6-26 02:47 發表
As being a chartered surveyor (MRICS or ARICS) , I think you should know the English Land Lease Lease hold and free holdAs being a chartered surveyor (MRICS or ARICS) , I think you should know the English Land Lease System and Deed System.

Only private land would have been awarded with either lease hold or free hold. Only one private property in Hong Kong was awarded as free hold in one dollar term. Do you know where it is?

Other government properties and facilities (castle) will have no period limitation as it was exempted from laws (previous namely Exemption Ordinance).

If the so called "castle" had the lease and land mark, it will not be a castle logically. No private castle was allowed in Hong Kong Colony according to previous letter of patent.

...

Brother 竹園BB : The land system in the New Territories (including New Kowloon) is much more complicated than the HK Island and Kowloon. I can recommend some books / papers for you to read if you are interested.

Talking about freehold properties in Hong Kong, the only freehold church property had its own unique background, belonging to the trustee of Church of England which was very powerful in Endgand at that time. As a matter of fact, although some earlier influential merchants tried to force the Government to sell properties in auctions as freehold, their request was not enetertained. Nevertheless, as a sort of compromise, some early properties granted with a term of 999 years are virtually freehold properties.

You may also be interested to explore other forms of military land holdings in Hong Kong, including Ministry of Defence (MOD) lots, grant by ordinances, etc. These are interesting topics for research but are outside the scope of the present discussions.

Many thanks for sharing - excellent photos and annotations.