WHAT IS LAND AGGREGATION?

Chronicle (Levin), 21 August 1946, Page 6

WHAT IS LAND AGGREGATION?

Press Association

DAUGHTER DENIED FARM AS MOTHER HAS ONE SUPREME COURT ISSUE

By Telegraph —

NEW PLYMOUTH, August 2U. Seeking to show that the Land Saies Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under the Servicemen's Settlement and 'Land Saies Act wlien it uplield the de» cision of tlie Taranaki Land Saies Cominittee, proceedings taken in the Supreine Court at New Plymouth today raised the question of land aggregation in general. * . Mr. Justice Cornisli, in reserving his decision, admitted the points raised were neat and important and suggested that no mattcr what his tinding was, oue party or tlie otlier miglit care to take the matter to the Court of Appeal. The circuinstances from wliicli thc proceedings arose were the decision of . the Land Saies Court to • uphold the Land Saies Coinmittee in its refusal of conseut to the sale of a farrn of 220 aeres at Kaponga to Doreen Mary Eugelberger. The grounds of the refusal were that the i>urchnse would mean uiulue aggregation because the iiiothor, Roso Eugelberger, alrcady had suihcient land. The effect qf tliis decision, submitted Mr. R. J. O.'Dea on behalf of Aliss Eugelberger, was that she could not pureha.se land anywhere in New Zealand so long as land was held by lier motlier. Purther, if the Suprcme Court declined writs of certiorari and the prohibitiou applied i'or and tlius upheid the decision of the other Court, it would mean that any person miglit be prevented from buyiug land if any member of his fkniily was held to have suflieieut. Before the Servicemen's Settlement and Land Saies- Act was passcd, couusel said, tlicre was no restriction on the purchasc of freehold land by any of his Majesty's subjects in New Zealand. The Act, therefore, was a serious infringement on thc riglits and iiberties of the subject and besides tliis, it created a new jurisdiction — the Land Saies Court. It was tluis essential that the Act should be strictly interpreted -and that ' the 11ational and comnion law riglits of a subject should be preserved as far as possible. liis Ilonour: I agree it must be strictly interpreted. In efl'ect tlie Land Saies Court says you cunnot buy because you would be acting as a "dummy" for the motlier. Mr.. O'Dea said there was no question of tlie daughter's actiug as a "dummy. " Tlie motlier had gyarauteed the finance for tlie daugliter i'n tlie purcliase of the land with the idea that it should be developed and handed to tlie son wlien he reached the age of 21 years. The Land Saies Court had considered, however, that the motlier had siifticient laiid for her own use and use of the family. Counsel maintaiued that in acting tlius the Court had read soniethiug into the Act that was not there, His Ilonour: Iu tliis case the Land Saies Court held that if it permitted ihe purcliase there would be aggregation in tlie family group. Mr. O'Dea: I say the Act do.es not Ollow that- tOvbe takou intouiccount. A curlous legal aspect of tlie proceedings is that the Scrvicemen 's Settlement and Land Saies Act provides that there sliall be no appeal from the decision of the Land Saies Court yet thc Supreme •Court is mpw ibeing asked to review such decision, 'the means adopted to achieve that purpose being an application l'or u writ of certiorari. * Tliis matter was dealt witli by Mr. H.-M. Vautier, Auckland, who apjiear.ed in tlie proceedings "iu the public interest. " He admitted that a writ of certiorari would be against the Land Saies'' Court and Land Saies Committee and that if the Judge refused to issue the writ, applicant could have recourse to a further appeal_ against the decision in the Court of Appeal. Answcring Mr. O'Dea 's arguments, Mr. Vautier said Land Saies Coniniittees had discretion enabling tliem to take into account circumstances of partieular cases and to treat a proposc.1 purchasc as uiulue aggregation, notwithstauding that the land was to be put into the name of another uiember of the family. Before the Supreme Court could override a decision of the Land Saies Court it must bo shown that the Land Saies Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. It was urged by Mr. Vautier that if oue family got an. undue .share of land in a distriet, thc price of the remnining land was forced up and it acquired an increased scarcity value. lf the question of aggregation were lo be conf'used witli aggregation by a purchaser liimself, the door would be wide opou for saies to "dummy" purcliasers. Three sets of defeiulaiits were nanied in the papers: Mr. Justice Ong'lcy and other members of the Land Saies Court, Fraucis Stanley Grayling and other members of the Taranaki Land Saies Committee, and Harold Percy Dnie, veiulor of the propeilv desired by Aliss Eugelberger.