CROWN LEASES.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16847, 29 May 1920, Page 12

CROWN LEASES.

BOARD'S POWES TO DECLE?E TRANSFERS.

Tho decision ci the Canterbury Land Board net to grant transfers of Crown leasee unless the transferor has held the leaso for at leaft two years, the intention being to discourage trafficking in the:e leases, hr.3 raised the question of the powers of the Boird in respect of granting cr declining transfers. It appears ihat Land Boards have pretty wide discretionary powers, and that ft lessee is net, of riciu. entitled io got a trar.::er by merely applying i'or it. A3 long as the

Beard siimpiy declines the application, and gives no reason for its action, it seems that the applicant will Experience some difficulty in upsr-iting the Board's decision. Under Part VI. of the Land Ac*, 1005. dealing with land lielrl for pastoral purposes, ".vido power is given the Bond in the matter ci declining transfers. Section -S3 providrs : —"J",;e Board shall at all times have power, in the public interests, ar.d in its discretion, to refuse its sanction to the transfer of any run. or the interest i;t any run." Tlier? i? some doubt a? to whether this prevision applies oniv to pastern". runs, and is noi intended io apply to small grazing runs. It is section SI of the Act that stipulates that the lessee must hare b:cn in occupation ci the laud held under Crown lease for two yews before tha Board can recommend and the llinister approve o: a. transfer. It is not absolutely' tie;;" whether this applies to the original les~eo o::iy or to the original and subsequent lessee*. Hitherto the Canterbury Land Board has given a liberal interpretation to this section, the determining factor being the reasons given in each case in rupport of the application. Kor instance, the Board hscl littio hesitation in granting uu application for a transfer of his lease made by a discharged soldier who, on account of the state 01 his health, asserted that it was impossible for him to work the land. Having been satisfied of tho bona fides of the applicant, tho Beard decided that it was in the public interest that tho transfer shou~d be recommended. On the other hand, tho Board did not consider it a sufficient reason for a lessee desiring to transfer his lease that his wife suffered from rheumatism.

The particular application which led tho Board, - after discussion, to decide not to grant transfers unless the applicant has held the land for at least two years, is understood to have been in respect of r. small grazing run, tinder 1000 acres, in tho Cheviot district, and there is some difference of opinion as to whether or not tho applicant was justified in asking the increased 'goodwill set out in his application. It is alleged that the applicant, when ho acquired the lease, got it. at £1000 or £1300 lx-iow its then, value, and that the appreciation i:i land values smfce then, variously estimated at from 33 l-3rd per cent, to 50 per cent., justifies the increased goodwill asked for. This is, of course, disputed, and on general ground* it is contended that anything in tho nature of trafficking in Crown leases should be discountenanced.