LAND FOR DRAHI.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4991, 23 June 1926, Page 4

LAND FOR DRAHI.

OBJECTION BY LANDOWNER.

QUESTION OF COMPENSATION.

A letter was read at the last meeting of the Horahia Drainage Board from Mrs S. A. Irwin, Horahia, with reference to the board’s proposal to have a drain constructed on the boundary of her property to provide an outlet for the land on the other side of the Kerepeehi-Kopuarahi road. Her land wa,s highly improved, and the actual drain and the spoil therefrom would occupy a considerable area of her small Ifarm. As the would not pay compensation she asked that the decision be reconsidered. She was convinced that the board was making a hal'd ajid unjust call, and that if an inspection was made this would be recognised by members. In reply to the board’s forma,! notice. of intention to construct the drain Mrs Irwin again wrote, supporting her protest and advising that unless the board was prepared to come to a settlement no workmen would be allowed to come on her property.

The chairman reported, that he had discussed the matter with Mi's Irwin, and had persuaded her to take the matter to the court for decision. The clerk said that the procedure w.a,s for the board and the owner to appoint an engineer .to adjudicate as to whether the drain should be constructed or not. His decision was final. If the parties could not agree on an engineer the matter was to be referred to a magistrate sitting with two assessors, and the decision dl the magistrate would be. final. Mrs Irwin waited upon the board in rega.rd to the appointment of an engineer and asked for the reason for this procedure. The clerk explained the provisions of the Drainage Act, under 'which the. board was working. Mrs Irwin said that her farm did not require the additional drain, and she would not permit j.t to be constructed unless legal steps were taken to compel her to do sb. The clerk said that the issue, was confused According to the Act, if a landowner objected to a clrajn an engineer had to be appointed to decide whether the drain should be made or not. The matter of compensation could be brought up a,t any time within 12 months, and! the landowner could take action against the board.

Mrs Irwin said that she would hot appoint a.n engineer, as £he did not see the necessity. She. realised that the drain was necessary, and was only concerned with securing compensation.

The clerk said that the boa.rd had to follow the process laid down in the Act. The engineer or the magistrate and assesosrs had to decide on the necessity of the work, so that a drainage board’s scheme would hot be held up by a stubborn landowner.

Mrs Irwin asked why an enginee.r should be appointed to decide what both parties realised w.as necessary. She was only concerned with the securing of compensation In reply to the. chairman Mrs D’win said that she would withdraw her objection on the understanding that she reserved the right to sue for compensation.

Members agreed that this would be satisfactory, and that Mrs Irwin had the. entire sympathy of the board, which realised the peculiar circumsta.nces, but which was bound to follow the procedure laid down in tlie Drainage Act.