LAND SALES ACT

Grey River Argus, 15 January 1944, Page 5

LAND SALES ACT

PA. CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 14. The question of what constitutes undue aggregation of land, under the Land Sales and Servicemen’s Settlement Act, was debated at the Urban Land Sales Committee to-day, when consideration was being given to the transfer of property to a purchaser holding- 20 properties comprising mostly small houses, and a few shops for investment purposes. The application was for the transfer of shop and house property from the Public Trustee to Colin Campbell. There is no dispute over the value of' the property, said the chairman (Mr. K. G. Archer), but there is a question whether the aggregating too much land witnin the meaning of the Act. ’ d Mr L A. Dougali, who appeared for the purchaser, said t he bu gethod urban properties was the meti used by Campbell for investment, purposes. He was retired and ed after the Properties lumself The properties represented the bulk ot ms aS Mr? W. S. Kent, on behalf of the vendor, said that n f what Act was there any He constituted undue aggiegabon He greXtW’ 1 meant 6 something against gSffiterS 1 and that of houses was not the public interest. He tui tnei sup mitted that the Act applied to luial Rpnlvin o, to a question by the Chairman” Mr. Dougali said Campbell not buying and selling proPe Mr eS T S W S West? I "member of the committee, asked whether there was any chance of Campbell taking the case to the Court of Appeal if application for transfer were refused. Mr Dougali: No. We are prepared to «tand bv the Committee’s decision. Mr. West: We would like him to the committee’s deci-

sion to grant the application, Mr. Archer said the Act gave the committee little guidance als< to what circumstances the committee should refuse permission on the ground of undue aggregation. There was some doubt whether the Act applied to house properties at all. In the present case there was no evidence before the committee that the transfer would be injuring the interests of the public. On the other hand there would no doubt be hardship on the vendor if the sale of the property to an investor were refused. Asked whether the committee Would give any general ruling for such case, Mr. Archer said it was desirable for the Crown to draw the Committee’s attention to cases where a buyer already held .a large number of properties. He thought that course would be wise until the committee received a ruling. In the meantime, he thought the committee should grant such applications unless evidence showed that the transfer was against public interest.