POWER BOARD'S RIGHTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 167, 16 July 1924, Page 5

POWER BOARD'S RIGHTS.

USE OF PRIVATE LANDS. AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. (By Teleg-raph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. Reserved judgment was given by Mr. Justice Herdman to-day. in the case in which Robert Elliot Farrow sought an injunction against the Thames Valley Power Board, to restrain them from using his land, part of the Waokauri block No. 1, for the purposes of electrical construction work, until the reasonableness or necessity for doing so had been determined by two justices of the peace, acting under the provisions contained in section Gl of the Electric Power Boards' Act, 1018. His Honor, after reviewing the evidence and referring to the law bearing on the point, said that if land required for a settled scheme of work could bo taken and held without the intervenion of two justices, it seemed to him to be reasonable to suppose that the Legislature intended, when the permanent occupation and use of the land for the erection of poles and the carrying of lines over private lands was part and parcel of a comprehensive plan, that the work should •he proceeded with without the landowner having the right to call upon justices to determine whether this permanent use and occupation was necessary. The owner was entitled to full compensation, under section 08, so he could not complain upon the score that he would receive nothing for the concession which the law required him to give. If a large number of landowners were to have the right to appeal to justices in every case in which land was to be occupied so that poles might be erected or lines .put up the justices might refuse permission, and if the beard then proposed to use and occupy neighbouring lands, the owners of these last mentioned lands might in turn apply to justices for orders that their lands should not be used and occupied, and so endless confusion, embarrassment and interference with the progress of'the work would result. Remembering the object of the legislation and its general scope, it was, in his Honor's opinion, most consonant with reason to hold that section 61 did not apply to such an occupation and use of plaintiff's land, as the defendant had proposed. The application for an injunction would therefore be dismissed with costs £15 15/