SUBDIVISION OF LAND

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 93, 22 April 1925, Page 9

SUBDIVISION OF LAND

INTERESTING POINT DECIDED

LEGAL POSITION OF A LAND

REGISTRAR.

The question as to whether an owner of land within a borough, who sells a paprt of it and retains the balance, "subdivides the same for the _ purpose of sale " within the meaning of th,e Muni-! cipal Corporations Act, was decided by the Full Court in judgments given yesterday by Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Ostler. j The plaintiffs in the transactions were the Church Property Trustees and Robert Land ell Saunders, and the defendant in each ense was the Registrar of Deeds of the Canterbury Deeds Registration District. Mr. Justice Reed, in the. course of his judgment, said "that if a. person, owning land within a borough, sold a part of it and retained the balance he did not thereby subdivide his land for the purposes of sale within the meaning of s&ction 335 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920. In order to bring a sale of property within that section there must be something in the nature of a scheme or plan of subdivision, the public being invited to purchase by reference to such scheme or plan. In the case of the Church Property Trustees there was an area of 70 acres, which was put up for sale as a block. It was not sold. Subsequently the" Christchureh Drainage Board purchased by private contract -a small piece of the land,' an area of 20 perches, fronting on a public road. The Registrar demanded a plan of subdivision'; this was acquiesced in and the conveyance -was duly registered. Later Canterbury College agreed to purchase an area of some 15 acres situated on the north-east corner of the land and bounded on two. sides by public roads. The Registrar refused to register the conveyance unless a plan of subdivision was submitted and approved by the Borough Council. This was resisted, and the matter came before the Court on an originating summons which raised the question' of the right of the Registrar to so refuse. As already indicated, the Registrar was not in law entitled to refuse to register on the grounds suggested by him, and the question submitted would be answered accordingly. " The case of Saunders v. District Land Registrar: was a summons to show why the District Land Registrar should not register a transfer o! a piece of land cut off a larger piece, th& balance of the land being retained by the vendor with no present intention ,of selling it. Tho position here was tho same, and there would be an order directing the Registrar to register the transfer, with costs to be paid out of the Land Assurance Fund Account. In the Church Property Trustees' case, there would be no costs. _ Mr. Justice fjim said: "I think that in Saunders's case an order should be made directing the Registrar to register the transfer., and directing the costs of both parties to be paid out of the Assurance Fund. Mr. Saunders's costs should be fixed at 20 guineas and disbursements, and the Registrar's at £15 15s. In the other case an order should be made declaring that- the defendant was not right in law in refusing, to .register the conveyances in question. As there was no innd out of which the costs of the originating summons could be ordered to be paid, the parties would have to bear their own costs." Mr. Jus.ice Ostler concurred with the decision of the other members of the Bench. irt b- itl\f h? arin S Mr- H. D. Andrews Christchureh) appeared for the plaintiff Church Trustees, and Mr. Saunders conducted his case in person. Mr- A. 1. Donnelly represented the defendants