LAND BOARD AND TENANT.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 17, Issue 59, 27 July 1906, Page 5

LAND BOARD AND TENANT.

THE BOARD’S RIGHT TO INTERFERE. GOODWILL 0! LEASES. Soma time ago the Marlborough Land Board came in for adverse criticism in connection with their action in refusing a transfer of a holding because, in their opinion, too large a sum was being paid by the incoming tenant by way of purchasing the go dwill. At that time we questioned the Board’s right to dictate the terms of transfer, so long as they were assured of the bona fides of the prospective tenant. A similar incident has 8 recently occurred in Taranaki, and the j Hawera Star, in referring to the matter, has taken exactly the same stand as ourselves.. The facts of the case are thus stated by the Star :—“ Mr X became selector of a section when the land was originally balloted for,\and in the face of a special investigation into the qualifications of all applicants proved himself to bo a most desirable settler. He entered upon possession, and farmed the I.nd satisfactorily. His neighbours are agreed that he worked early and late and materially improved his holding by tbe expenditure of capital and labour. Anyone who dared to suggest that he was a ‘ dummy ’ or nonimprover would have been open to an action for defamation. Lately he was found willing to sell out his interest, and an equally desirable tenant was willing to buy him out, and having arranged terms mutually satisfactory they applied to tbe Land Board for their consent. Necessarily, the usual course had to be gone through, and if the questions were deemed inquisitorial or impertinent that need not have aroused any resentment, because the ordeal is probably necessary in some eases, and it is not possible to make exceptions. The serious trouble arose when the Board interfered between buyer and seller by cutting down the goodwill consideration on the ground, as we understand, that visible improvements could not be shown to balance the sura arrived at between transferor and transferee. The Board’s estimate was, it seems, lowjsr by about £BO. The interference seems very open to criticism, especially in view of the undoubted fact that each party to the bargain was quite able to take care of himself, that the State are getting in' the transferee a first-class tenant, and that the transaction is entirely free of any suspicion of speculation or dummyism. The evidence, if any is on record, has not been published, nor has any report been printed of the reasons which actuated the Land Board. It is, therefore, not within our province to question tbe power or the good faith of tbe Board; but if it is to be accepted that the law makes compulsory interference of this sort we certainly shall expect to see the claim for tbe right to the freehold urged still more strongly than it has been hitherto in connection with the land for settlement estates,, as well as in. connection with ordinary Crown lands. Improvements, though not ‘ visible ’ to a valuer, may be well known to the man who has expended his time and money, and may be appreciated, too,- by the man who wishes to buy, and we should say there ought to be no interference between seller and buyer unless there are very strong reasons justifying it in the interests of the State or public morality. We cannot conceive of there being such reasons in this particular case.”