File 4613/1919 Pt 8 'MESOPOTAMIA: ADMINISTRATION: LAND ACQUISITION OF LAND AT MAGIL: INCIDENCE OF COST' [‎18r] (35/192)

—-
J ———,
In reply to ,(W0) 1828/1919
dated 12/11/1919.
J
*
•>
?tt//
Disposals Board,
Boulogne, A.P.0*3., /
France.
16tn December, 1919^-^
Sir Alexander Lawrence, Bart.
Assistant Solicitor to tfte Treasury,
WLitemil, S.w.
•' * 3 S 7
Sir, 1 /
.. ^ ^
f > '
I regret that pressure of worX : ha:S;;;mde it difficult for *
me to answer your letter of 12 th November* I have also waited
to get hold of a hooK on Ottoman land law to confirm my
recollection.
The hooK which I have before me does not give the later
Ottoman land legislation which was passed after the revolution,
“but so far as my memory serves me I do not thinic that there
is anything in this later legislation which seriously affects
the question except perhaps upon one or two points.
Generally speaking, at Ottoman law title to land depends
upon registration. There are two main classes of land viz.
muiic land and mirie land. Mulic land is land situated in towns
and villages and land not exceeding half an acre appurtenant
to dwelling houses. The owner of mulK land has full chattel
ownership. The|owner of mirie land has perpetual right to
the enjoyment of the surface (Huquq-i-tessaruf) while the
legal ownership (Raqabe) is in th^State and is vested in the
Treasury (Beit ul Mai). On escheat, the full ownership, in
the case of muli: land, and the huquq-i-tessaruf, in tne case
fcf mirie land reverts to the Treasury. The land is considered
to be mahloul (vacant), is sold and the proceeds are paid to
the Treasury.
I have no knowledge of how land upon which Ottoman Govern
ment public buildings are situated is actually registered, but
if the underlying theory of Ottoman land tenure is applied I
should expect to find that the registration officials looxed J
upon it as land that belonged to the Treasury in the same way
as land in respect of which there has been an Escheat. Inas