UNOCCUPIED LAND.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 470, 3 June 1932, Page 5

UNOCCUPIED LAND.

Usage Does Not Give Right to Title. THE LEGAL POSITION. The belief that all unoccupied land can become vested in a person through usage is not tenable in law, for provision is made that such areas are to be vested in the Public Trustee. The question has been raised by a correspondent, “ W.M.,” who asks: (1) Is there a law which states that if a person has occupied a piece of land for twenty-one years without an agreement, or a demand made for rent, can he continue to occupy it without paying rent? (2) Would a change of occupier affect this law, even though the piece was fenced in with his property? (3) Would it apply to an encroachment on property of a city council? The position, it is learned, is that, if a piece of land is held under a land transfer title, that title cannot be assailed by occupation, although it is held under the old deeds system, provided the district land registrar is satisfied that it has been occupied by the one man for twenty years and all charges paid for that period, a title may be issued. The mere fact of paying rates on a property does not give a right to a title. Properties covered by land transfer titles are liable, if the owner cannot be found and after site months’ notice had been given, to be vested in the Public Trustee, who has full power to deal with the disposal of the property.

In the case of unoccupied land upon which no rates have been paid, the local body can sue for the rates and if the amount is not paid, distrain upon the land. The enclosure of city council land and its usage does not give any claim to ownership.