LAND SALES ACT

Timaru Herald, Volume CLV, Issue 22791, 15 January 1944, Page 4

LAND SALES ACT

Undue Aggregation Of Land Committee Seeks Guidance (N.Z.P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH. Jan. 14. The question what constitutes undue aggregation of land under tire Land Sales and Servicemen’s Settlement Act was debated at a sitting of the Land Sales Committee to-day, when consideration was being given to the transfer of property to a purchaser who holds 20 properties, mostly small houses and a few shops, for investment purposes. The application was for the transfer of a shop and house property from the Public Trustee to Colin Campbell. “There is no dispute over the value of the property,” said the chairman (Mr K. C. Archer), “but there is a question whether the purchaser is aggregating too much land within the meaning of the Act.” Mr L. A. Dougall, who appeared for the purchaser, said that the buying of urban properties was the method used by Campbell for investment purposes. He was retired and looked after the properties himself. The properties represented the bulk of his assets. Against Public Interest? Mr W. S. Kent, on behalf of the vendor, said that nowhere in the Act was there any definition of what constituted undue aggregation. He submitted that the words “undue aggregation” meant something against the public interest, and that the aggregation of houses was not in itself against the public interest. He further submitted that the Act applied to rural land. Replying to a question by the chairman, Mr Dougall said that Campbell was not buying and selling properties as a speculator. Mr T. W. West (a member of the committee) asked whether there was any chance of Campbell taking a case to the Court of Appeal if the application for transfer were refused. Mr Dougall: No; we are prepared to stand bv the committee’s decision. Mr West: We would like him to appeal. Announcing the committee’s decision to grant the application, Mr Archer said the Act gave the committee little guidance as to in what circumstances the committee should refuse permission on the ground of undue aggregation. There was some doubt whether the Act applied to house properties at all. In the present case there was no evidence before the committee that the transfer would be injuring the interests of the public. On the other hand, there would no doubt be hardship on the vendor if the sale of the property to an investor were refused. Asked whether the committee would give any special ruling for such cases, Mr Archer said it was desirable for the Crown to draw the committee’s attention to cases where a buyer already held a large number of properties. He thought that course would be wise until the committee received a ruling. In the meantime lie thought the committee should grant such applications unless the evidence showed that the transfer was against the public interest