LAND VALUATION COURT MAKES DIRECTION ON KOPARA BLOCK

Grey River Argus, 18 February 1949, Page 2

LAND VALUATION COURT MAKES DIRECTION ON KOPARA BLOCK

? Westland Committee Is Over-ruled By direction of the Land Valuation Court, the Westland Land Valuation Committee yesterday consented to the transfer of 1100 acres of land at Kopara from the Public Trustee (Heaphy Estate) and Francis Costello, to John IVI. Clausen for the price sought, 14750. At a previous sitting, the Committee refused consent, on the grounds that the land should be sub-divided into dairying units. From this decision both the prospective purchaser, Clausen, and the Crown appealed, the latter’s grounds being that the Committee had acted outside its jurisdiction. The Land Valuation Court, in directing that the Committee reconsider the application, indicated that it should be granted. COURT’S REVIEW In its review of the circumstances, the Court pointed out that as the application was for consent to the sale of a farm property for £4750, no question arose as to the propriety of the purchase price, the committee having fixed the basic value at £4753. The purchaser was .a serviceman, and it was indicated that the Crown had withdrawn negotiations for purchase of the property on this account. Both the Crown and the purchaser had appealed on the ground that the committee had exceeded its jurisdiction in refusing the application on the grounds of public interest. “The court has perused the file, including the notes of evidence, the notices of appeal filed by the respective appellants and the chairman’s report, and, as the facts are not in dispute and the law is, in our opinion, clear, we do not deem it necessary to proceed to a public hearing of the appeals. The matter is, in our opinion, governed by Section 51 of the Act, which reads ‘(a) If the committee is satisfied that the Crown has decided not to acquire or arrange for the acquisition of the land, the committee shall disregard the suitability of adaptability of the land in considering the application’. UNDER SECTION 51: “Section 51”, stated the court, “is the section under which the committee is directed to consider the suitability or adaptability of land for the settlement of discharged servicemen, and in proper cases to fix a basic value so that the Crown may have the opportunity of acquiring the land for the settlement of servicemen. “The sub-paragraph makes it clear that where the Crown has decided not to acquire the land in question, the committee has no further responsibility under the section, and must disregard the question of its suitability or otherwise, for soldier settlement”, the court went on. “That appears to be the present case, and we are of the opinion that it is neither incumbent nor proper for a committee to refuse an application for the reasons stated in such circumstances”, the judgment concluded. “As no other objection was 'raised to the granting of the application, and as the price appears’ to be a proper one, and particularly as the purchaser is himself an ex-serviceman, we are of the opinion that the application should be granted”. CHAIRMAN’S STRONG COMMENT Stating that the application had been subject to appeals and instructions from the Court, the chairman of the Committee, Mr M. Wallace, commented that the Committee had prepared a statement setting out its attitude. “After hearing lengthy evidence and making an inspection of this property, we fixed the basic price at £4753, but refused the application on the grounds of public interest, it being our unanimous opinion that the property was suitable for sub-divis-ion and that the Crown should be given a further opportunity to acquire the property for rehabilitation purposes in terms of the Servicemens Settlement and Land Sales Act.

“A comprehensive report based upon the evidence and confirmed by an inspection, and setting out our views of the desirability of this property, was submitted to the Minister of Lands, Mr Skinner”, said Mr Wallace, “but he had apparently been otherwise advised —ill-advised in our opinion—by officers of his Department. Indeed, the, committee’s decision became the subject of appeals by the Crown, and by the purchaser, on the grounds that, in withholding consent the committee had exceeded its jurisdiction.

BOUND BY COURT “The court has upheld the appeals on the question of law, and has directed the committee to grant its consent, which, perforce, in the terms of the Act, we are obliged to do. The decision of November 30 is, therefore, rescinded, and consent to the application granted at the price sought, £4750.

“Tn granting consent, we congratulate the purchaser, for we believe that for a modest price he has become possessed of a very fine property of which, in due course, he may well feel proud, and we wish him every success.

“MISTAKEN POLICY’’ “We would fail in our public duty and responsibility, however, if we did not record our belief, based on a careful study of all of the facts, that there are no factors of soil, climate, locality, altitude, topography or economics that would materially affect, the successful development of this area for closer settlement”, said Mr Wallace. “It is our considered opinion that the Crown in this case has pursued a mistaken policy, and one to be deplored, as is also the apathy of the public generally when an opportunity such as this presents itself to advance settlement in the interests of this district and the country generalTh'e other members of the committee Messrs J. Mulcare and J. V/. Greenslade, stated that they agreed completely with Mr Wallace’s statement.

LAV/ AS IT IS WRITTEN After Mr Wallace had made his statement, the Crown representative, M’’ A. E. Wogan, pointed out to the committee that he represented no Department at the committee’s sittings. In the present case, his instructions had been not to ask for an order under Section 51 of the Act, and, accordingly, the committee should have administered the law as it was written. When the Crown did not seek an order under’ Section 51, the committee could do nothing but grant the application. No reference had been made to the Crown representative as such, said Mr Wallace. The advice to the Minister apparently came from Departmental officers. The committee realised that there was need for the law to be closely followed. Other Decisions The sale of a building in Tainui Street by G M. Truman to the Union Bank of Australia, for which £7OOO was sought, but considerably reduced by the Land Valuation Committee, is not now to proceed, and the bank is seeking alternative premises, while the shops are understood to be undergoing renovations. The property was mentioned in the

Land Valuation Committee yesterday when it considered applications under the Tenancy Act concerning the terms of new leases issued to the occupants of the shops, C. G. Moore and A. E. Kilgour. On the recommendation of the Crown representative, the committee adjourned the applications, pending a certificate from the stabilisation authorities in respect to the proposed increase in rental charges following the carrying out of certain repairs. T£e sale of a new Sinnott Road bungalow by Messrs A. M. Jamieson and F. A. Kitchingham to Mr J. M. Curnow, was approved. The price was fixed by agreement at £2OOO. The vendors sought £2300 for the property.