FARMER’S LOSS

Grey River Argus, 17 March 1945, Page 3

FARMER’S LOSS

LAND TAKEN BY CROWN COMPENSATION CLAIM OPPOSED P.A. NEW PLYMOUTH, March 16 Unusual points wore raised m the claim for compensation arising from the taking of land by the Crown under Section 51 of tne Servicemen s Settlement and Land Sales Act, which was heard at New Plymouth to-day, by the Taranaki Land Sales Committee The land was an ingle, wood property, belonging to the estate of J. H. W. Angerstein. Decision was reserved The claim, involving sums amounting to £616 19s Bd, was based on losses that would not have occurred but for the intervention of the Act, said Mr. R L. Gilbert, for the claimant, John E. G. R. Angerstein. When J. H. W. Angerstein died last year, his son, John Angerstein, became the owner of the property and the trustee* of the estate. He also held a third mortgage on the land The proceedings were important, because the claim, was the first if its kind in New Zealand, said Mr. M. iVautier, of Wellington, solicitor for the Lands and Survey Department, who represented the Crown, and opposed the claim. '‘This is the first case,” he said, “where the owner has not accepted the price fixed by the Land Sales Committee or the Land Sales Court. The whole question of the effectiveness of Section 51 of the Act is involved in these claims . If the principle underlying the claims was admitted, then every owner of a farm who was given a basic value less than the consideration, could claim the balance as compensation for special loss.” He said that, to admit the claims, would be to admit that a farmer was entitled to more than the fair valus of lana. Mr Gilbert stated how John Angerstein had entered into an agreement on August 21, 1944, for the sale of the property, and in anticipation of the sale, he sold some of his sheep at prices which were about 5s per head less than he would, have received had he sold in mid December. The basic value, of £2,598,- determined by the Committee was less than the consideration, and it was not regarded as adequate by Angerstein. But, in the meantime, it was decided that tne land was suitable for soldier settlement, and on November 30, a Gazette notice announced that the propetry would be taken by the Crown as fi’om December 14. The offer of £2,598. was not acceptable to Angerstein, who said that it woul not compensate for his loss, and would not pay off the third mortgage. . Mr. Gilbert said that the claimant was compelled to accept the offer, and he was denied the right to continue his farming operations, and so save himself thel loss. . The chairman of the Committee, Mr. F. S. Grayling, said that, on Mr. Gilbert’s argument, any man who suffered loss through an Act of Parliament would be entitled to compenS3.ti Oil* 1 Mr Vautier contended that the whole of Angerstein’s claim lot’ special loss arose because he left ms farm vacant while the machinery oi the Act was put into action. Angerstein knew there was a likelihood oi the Crown’s taking the land. Mr. Gilbert submitted that the whole question arose from the com nulsory taking of the land by t Crown. .