LAND TITLES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.36 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill now before this House, as Members will note, is a rather technical one. I propose, therefore, to confine myself to the major amendments proposed therein. These amendments are, in the main, designed to bring more lands that are approved for development under the Ordinance and to bring the Ordinance into line with the provisions of the Land Titles (Strata) Act, 1967, and the Planning Ordinance, 1959.

Clause 2 of the Bill is designed to hasten the pace generally of conversion to the Torrens System of land registration by empowering the Registrar of Titles to bring unregistered land, in respect of which permission to develop has been granted under the Planning Ordinance, 1959, under the control of the Ordinance by issuing a qualified certificate of title in respect thereof. The registration of conveyances can thus be effected more quickly without survey being finalised. This provision will have the beneficial effect of enabling purchasers of units of new housing estates and, in certain circumstances, owners of flats to obtain their title deeds with a minimum of delay, and immeasurably assist landowners who wish to use their title deeds as security for loans to finance commercial or industrial undertakings.

Clause 11 deals with implied easements for the passage of water, electricity, drainage, gas and sewerage in each lot of land forming part of the same housing estate. The purpose of this amendment is to resolve the difficulty in carrying out the existing provisions of the Ordinance relating to notification of easements on certificates of titles where cross-easements in respect of all lots in a housing estate are required to be created. A similar provision appears in the Land Titles (Strata) Act, 1967, which has satisfactorily solved the difficulty under that Act with regard to flats.

Clause 14 amends section 112 of the Ordinance. The existing provision in section 112 (4) of the Ordinance does not specify the cases where an application to remove a restriction could be made to the land. The applicant, therefore, has to rely on common law cases. The provision now under this clause will enable the court to remove restrictive covenants on the application of any person interested in land where, by reason of the change of user of such land, the continuance of the restriction will impede development for public or private purposes, or where the removal thereof will not materially injure the person entitled to the benefit of the restrictive covenant. Provision is also made for compensation to be paid by the applicant to any person entitled to the benefit of the restriction. This will thus allow landowners a reasonable opportunity of developing their land in line with any planning user that is imposed by Government. This amendment will meet in some measure the representations of the Law Society for the enactment of legislation for the discharge or modification of restrictive covenants.

Clause 17 amends section 127 of the Ordinance and provides that claims may be brought against the assurance fund constituted under section 123 of the Ordinance only if the Registrar or any member of his staff can be held liable for any omission, mistake or misfeasance in the bringing of such land under the provisions of the Ordinance or in registering any instrument.

Another amendment that relates to the assurance fund occurs in clause 7 which amends section 33 of the Ordinance dealing with applications for possessory titles. Under the existing provisions of the Ordinance, any applicant for a possessory title may be required to contribute to the assurance fund such fee by way of indemnity, not greater than two per cent of the value of the land. Sir, the Explanatory Statement to the Bill is incorrect and misleading to the extent that it suggests that an applicant is required to contribute. This should, of course, read "may be required to contribute". The issue of a title to a possessory owner of land exposes the Government to claims for the recovery of damages against the assurance fund under clause 17 of the Bill. Such claims will normally depend on the prevailing market value of the land. It is considered that the present rate of two per cent may be inadequate. In certifying a title that rests on adverse possession, the assurance fund is exposed to a greater degree of risk than with regard to other forms of certification. It is relevant that a person with a possessory title is, by virtue of subsection (6) of section 33 of the Ordinance, deemed to be a purchaser of value who thus acquires many of the benefits conferred by the provisions of the Ordinance dealing with indefeasibility of title. It is proposed to increase this rate to five per centum which is the present rate required to be paid under Rule 43 of the Land Titles Rules, 1960.

Clause 18 confers power upon the court to rectify the land-register in certain circumstances, that is to say, where two or more persons have by mistake been registered as proprietor of the same registered estate or interest in the land that is registered, or where the court is satisfied that any registration or notification has been obtained through fraud, omission or mistake. At present there is provision under section 131 of the Ordinance for rectification only by the Registrar where errors have occurred in the land-register.

Sir, the amendments to which I have referred up to this point cover the new concepts of major importance that are sought to be introduced into the Ordinance. The other amendments which are not without importance are intended either to remove anomalies, for example, clause 19, or to strengthen and improve the administration of the Ordinance (clauses 3, 4, 5, 8 and 16), or to protect the interests of the Government (clause 12), or the interests of the legal profession (clause 9). The remaining amendments have been explained briefly in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill and do not, therefore, call for any special comment.

The Bill, which has been drafted in close consultation with the Law Society of Singapore, has benefited considerably from its advice and suggestions.

The Bill constitutes a workable piece of land legislation and will help to ensure that the law in force in Singapore in relation to the registration of titles to registered land keeps pace with the changing needs of our rapidly developing and fast industrialising society.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Barker].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.46 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 -

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 13, after line 31, to add -

"(2) The amendments effected by this section in relation to section 35 of the Property Tax Ordinance, 1960, shall be deemed to apply to all transfers executed or lodged in for registration by the Comptroller of Property Tax before the date of the coming into operation of the Land Titles (Amendment) Act, 1970, and all such transfers so executed shall accordingly be deemed always to have been, or to be, validly executed.".

Sir, the amendment as now proposed is to remove any doubt as to whether the Comptroller of Property Tax has powers to execute transfers as regards registered land under sections 35 and 38 of the Property Tax Ordinance, 1960, and at the same time ensure that the intention of section 116 of the Land Titles Ordinance, 1956, is carried out. It will not, however, affect any accrued or vested rights to property.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: There is a consequential amendment,

In page 13, line 18, after "16.", to insert "-(1) ".

This will be done.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 21 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause -

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members to introduce a new clause without notice? Sir, this new clause is to amend section 128 of the principal Ordinance by merely deleting subsection (5) thereof. This is, in fact, an amendment consequential on the amendment made by clause 17 to section 127.

The Chairman: I give my consent. Does the Minister have the general assent of Members to introduce a new clause without notice?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

New clause - "Amendment of Section 128 of the Ordinance section 128 is hereby amended by deleting subsection (5) thereof.". -[Mr Barker].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: The new clause is to be inserted immediately after clause 17. Consequential amendments will be made to renumber clauses 18 to 21 as clauses 19 to 22.

Bill reported with amendments: read a Third time and passed.