'File 6/7 I Kuwait landing ground' [‎193r] (390/524)

3.
(a) In view of our rights under the respect ire Agree
ments, no question arises of seeking permission f r0 m the
£ uler for the right to instal the facility.
(b) thtre an additional facility is required to be
installed within the limits of the aerodrome in use, again
no question of permission arises,
(c) She ct»se may arise where additional facilities
involve the cor,.traction of builsUnge, >//? B®«te etc., on
jbnu outside the limits of the a.rodroae. In this case also
there is no question of obtaining permission fa- the right to
instal t,.e lacilitie.. The questien of the ownership of the
l and , however, does arise, as the site required may be {%)
w&ste laud, or ( 2 ) cultivated or occupied land.
In the cf ee of (1), in mp opinion, no payment need be
rni'de. i he Euler would be informed that the site was required,
and the burden of proving that its use would infringe a public
ri^ht (such as right of way) or a private easement would lie
on the Euler.
In the case of (2) a similar procedure would be followed
with the addition that compensation would have to be paid for
the use of the site#
4 . The foregoing, relates to additional facilities to
existing aerodromes. In the case of additional civil aero*
dr ones being required a distinction exists between our rights
under the Civil fir Agreements with the a tiler e of K.u*a it,
Bahrain and Muscat on the one hand, and of Shsrj&h on the other
in the case of the former we have the right to establish more
thT'D /