The Gazette 1974

the Minister, three requirements are necessary : (1) It must appear to the Minister that there are minerals on or under the land—this is called into question here; (2) It must appear to the Minister that such minerals are not being worked or not being worked efficiently and (3) That the Minister considers it desirable in the public interest that the working of such minerals should be controlled by the State with a view to their exploi- tation. These requirements, put together, show that the Minister must make an appraisal of the situation in the light of the particular mineral substances which lie unworked, or are being inefficiently worked, and having considered that it is desirable in the public interest that their working should be controlled by the State. As the Minister's Order is a blanket Order to cover "all min- erals" under the land, thereby showing a want of the necessary discrimination and appraisal, it infringes Section 14 (1) of the Act of 1940. The mandatory provisions of Section 14 (2) (a) mentioned by Budd J. were also not complied with. The scheme of compensation itself seems incompat- ible with the blanket acquisition of all minerals on or under land. The amount of the royalty rent can be assessed by the Mining Board only after consideration of what a willing grantor and a willing grantee would agree to, having strict regard to "the situation, nature and extent" of the minerals acquired. The appeals are consequently dismissed. [Roche and Bula Ltd. v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and others and The State (Randies) v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Attorney-General; Full Supreme Court; unreported; 4 March 1974.] If an unregistered owner of registered land dies before 1959 his executor may sell the estate as if he had been the registered owner, under Part IV of the Local Registration of Title Act, 1891. On 26 April 1921 William Sheils was registered as full owner subject to equities of part of the lands of Barnageeragh, Co. Dublin, on Folio 2089, Co. Dubin. Part IV of the Registration of Title Act, 1891, applied. W. Sheils died intestate on 30 March 1931 and on 16 September 1931 letters of administration were granted to his son, Joseph Sheils, the plaintiff in these proceedings, who was not registered as owner on the folio, as there were four next of kin entitled to share in the estate. On 29 September 1973 these lands were sold by pub- lic auction to the defendant. In the conditions of sale, it was stated that the plaintiff was selling the lands as the personal representative of his father. The purchaser objected to the title on the ground that, as the owner had died forty-two years ago, a sale by the plaintiff as personal representative could not be in due course of administration, and required the plaintiff to have him- self registered as full owner. The plaintiff contended that his father's estate had not been administered, and that the administration bond had to be renewed each year; as the defendant has refused to accept this explanation, the plaintiff has issued a summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, seeking a declara- tion that he has shown good title. It was contended by the defendant that Section 84 (3) of the Registration of Title Act, 1891, no longer applied, as it had been repealed by the Second Schedule of the Administration of Estates Act, 1959. However. 208

unknown minerals of great value which the Minister can acquire without payment of adequate compen- sation. The Minister has made no attempt to meet this objection. Under Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act of 1940 one cannot specify the nature, situation and extent of the minerals without knowing what such minerals are. Consequently O'Keeffe P. granted a declaration to the plaintiffs that the Minister's Order is invalid on the ground that it does not specify with reasonable particularity the nature, situation and extent of the rninerals being acquired. [Roche and Bula Ltd. v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Attorney-General and Wright; O'Keeffe P.; unreported; 13 April 1973.] Conditional Order of Certiorari quashing Nevinstown Mineral Development Order, 1971, made absolute. The applicants had obtained a conditional order of Certiorari on 21 March 1972 to quash the Minerals Development (Nevinstown and other Townlands, Co. Meath) Order, 1971, and they now seek to have the conditional order made absolute. Despite the fact that the Minister wished to adduce further evidence, he only filed a Notice to show cause, instead of filing a detailed affidavit. This was pointed out to the Court who made an order on 1 June 1972 giving liberty to file an affidavit before June 12, but no affidavit was filed. The applicants had made a prima facie case by which it was shown that the Minister had no evidence to form an opinion whether there were minerals under the applicant's lands or not, which ought in the public interest to be acquired. The Minister had not tried to rebut this, and the applicant must succeed. As the Minister's Order was not in accordance with the Statute, as decided in the Roche case, the Order cannot stand. Consequently the conditional order of Certiorari will be made absolute . [The State (Randies) v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce; O'Keeffe P.; unreported; 13 April 1974.] The Minister appealed against the judgment of the President of the High Court in the two cases, but the two appeals were dismissed unanimously by the full Supreme Court. Budd J., in delivering the first judgment, read the full text of "The Minerals Acquisition (Nevinstown and other Townlands in Co. Meath) Order, 1971". It indicated that all minerals under the land described in the Schedule to the Order are vested in the Minister in fee simple. The lands were delineated by a red line on a map deposited in the Geological Survey and duly sealed with the seal of the Minister. In Section 14 (2) (a) of the Mineral Development Act, 1940, it is stated specifically that the Minister's Order must specify the nature, situation and extent of the minerals to which it relates. The nature of the mineral-bearing ore, and the depth and extent of the mineral seam can be discovered by experimental boring. The situation of the minerals can easily be described by reference to the townland. As the nature, situation and extent of the minerals to which this Order relates is not stated, the Minister's Order is consequently invalid. Henchy J., in delivering the second judgment, stated that Section 14 (1) of the 1940 Act makes it clear that, before a Minerals Acquisition Order can be made by