CHECKMATE!

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 333, 21 October 1908, Page 6

CHECKMATE!

SECTION 117 OF THE PUBLIC WORKS ACT. AN IMPORTANT CASE. . The Court of Appeal has at length found means to deal with that much-abused section of tho Public Works Act, which has been found to be a particularly awkward and expensive bit of legislation. This is Clause 117 of the Public AYorks Act of 1905, and other clauses bearing on the same provisions. As set out in yesterday's issuo a case was brought before tho Court of Appeal, in which Mr. H. Plimmer sought to compel tlio District Land Registrar to issue a title for a section of land fronting on to Plimmer's Lane, this section being portion of a block (containing in all three distinct and separ-ately-held buildings), for which tliero was only ono title. Mr. Plimmer received the property under the will of his late grandfather, Mr. John Plimmer, but as the property in question did' not front a street 66ft. wide, the District Land Registrar refused to register a separate title. Mr. Plimmer could have-got a title by dedicating enough of his section to allow of there being 33ft. from tho centre of the lane, and his building line, but as his greatest frontage faced the lane it would have been a hardship for hini to have had to do it without compensation, which he would have to claim from-the'City Corporation if driven to the wall. The position, in a nutshell, -was that Mr. Plimmer •could not got a title to a section of land which had been left him under a will. The obstacle to be overleaped was the section (117) referred to, which roads: — "(1) Where land having a frontage to an existing road or street of a less width than 66ft. is subdivided into allotments for the purpose of sale, the owner shall set back the frontage of the land to a distance of at least 33ft. From the centre line of the road or street, and shall dedicate as a public road or streot tho strip of land between the frontage line so set back and the frontage line as previously existing, and-the land so dedicated shall form part of such_ existing road or street: provided that this section shall not apply in any case where the local , authority having control of the road or street by resolution declares that the _ provisions hereof shall not apply to any specified road or street',or any specified part thereof, and such resolution is approved by the ; ' .' "(2) In cases where the frontages 'on either side of any road or street has already been set back under the operation of this Act, or voluntarily by the owner, or by arrangement with the local authority, the centre line of tho road or street shall bo taken to mean the centre line of the road or . street as it originally existed. ' _ ' "(3) The owner of the land so dedicated ' shall be entitled to compensation by the local ji-uthoritv having control of the road or

street, such compensation to' be assessed under the provisions of this Act. " (4) It any question or , dispute arise hereunder between the owner and a local authority, or the owner, . or . local authority and . district land ? registrar,-, or registrar'of deeds, such question or.dis-, puto shall bo referred to the Minister, wliose decision in writing shall be final and conclusive on all parties; and he may for the pursuch decision cause an inquiry to be held in ,the manner set forth in Section 119 hereof." It will be seen that for the landowner whose property fronts on a street less than G6ft. wide, and who wishes to subdivide and obtain titles for such subdivisions, thera are only- two courses open—to dedicate such land that' will make the distance between the frontage boundary of the land and the centre of the street or road 33ft., or prav for exemption from the provisions of the Act either in part or wholly. The judgment of tho Appeal Court in the Plimmer case alters the whole complexion of the provisions of tho Act particularly referred to, and must be read with general interest, as the clause (introduced by Air. Seddon in the session of 1905) is one that has caused trouble in every district throughout New Zealand, and must have proved a veritable bonanza to the lawyers. Where'it has been considered almost an impossibility to subdivide for sale a block that was built over, which faced a streot less than 66ft. wide, it is now made quite clear that a title cannot bo refused.for a piece of land if it is a separate and distinct holding, such being manifest by tho fact that a building separately held from those in the immediate vicinity is erected thereon. It is assumed that the provisions of the Act would still hold good m tho case of land to bo subdivided which was clear of anything in tho way of a structure, but if a person owned land on which were erected a row of. cottagos fronting on to, say, a 20ft. street, ho could now'.apply successfully for title for each separato holding. The new reading of Section 117 will be a distinct and certain relief to local bodies from one end of tho country to the other, many of whom have had to pay large sums of money for land dedicated where titles wore needed for subdivisions, which money would havo been saved tho ratepayers had the case such as the one recently argued before the Court of Appeal been taken at tho birth of the part-stauto now run to earth. Mr. 0. Boero, who conducted tho case for - Mr. Plimmer, raised the separato holding point as boing a subdivision of tho land, (though not of tho title), on which tho law point turned, and his contention Was upheld, by Judges Williams. Edwards, Denniston, and Chapman, with the Chief Justice as dissentient;