FARMER’S CLAIM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25796, 17 March 1945, Page 8

FARMER’S CLAIM

LAND TAKEN BY CROWN IMPORTANT POINTS RAISED (P.A.) NEW PLYMOUTH, Mar. 16. Unusual points were raised in a claim for compensation which was heard by the Taranaki Land Sales Committee to-day. The claim arose from the taking of land by the Crown under section 51 of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act, the farm involved being an Inglewood property belonging to the estate of Mr J. H. W. Angerstein. Decision - was reserved. The claim, which involved 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. A. L. Gilbert, for the claimant, Mr John Angerstein. When Mr J. H. W. Angerstein died last year his son, Mr John Angerstein, became the owner of the property and the trustee of the estate. He also held a third mortgage on the land. First Case of Kind

The proceedings were important because the claim was the first of its kind in New Zealand, said Mr M. Vautier, of Wellington, solicitor for the Lands and Survey Department, who represented the Crown and opposed the claim. “ This is the first case where the owner has not accepted the price fixed by the Land Sales Committee or the Land Sales Court,” he said. “The whole question of the effectiveness of '■ section 51 of the Act is involved in these claims.” If the principle underlying them 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. To admit the ' claims would be to admit that farmers . were entitled to more than the fair value of their land. Mr Gilbert said that Mr 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 them in mid-December. The basic value of £2598 determined by the committee was less than the con- , sideraticn and was not regarded as adequate by Mr Angerstein. In the meantime, however, it was decided that the land was suitable for soldier settlement, and on November 30 a Gazette notice announced that the property would be taken by the Crown as from December 14. The Crown’s offer of £2598 was not acceptable to Mr Angerstein, who said it would not compensate him for his loss and would not pay off the third mortgage. Mr Gilbert said the claimant was compelled to accept the cffer, and was denied the right to continue his farming operations and save himself loss Comment by Chairman

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 compensation. Mr Vautier contended that the whole of Mr Angerstein’s claim for special loss arose because he left his farm vacant while the machinery of the Act was put into action. \ Mr Angerstein knew there was a likelihood of the Crown’s taking the land. • Mr Gilbert submitted that the whole question arose from the compulsory taking of the land by the Crown.