SALE OF LAND

Chronicle (Levin), 12 November 1946, Page 5

SALE OF LAND

— Press Association

SUPREME COURT DECISION

By Telegraph

XN 1'J \ V X'Jj Y jlOC TH; .NOV. 1J. L"i)Iiol(iing tiie ueeisions oi ihe Land Saies Uouri und Taranaki Lauii Saies Coinmittoe, Mr. .Justice Cornisli, in a reser\ ed (teeision, dismissed an appeal against reiusal to consent to tiie sate oi a larm of ^_0 acres at Kaponga, 'ihe niain point discussed wlien tlie matter vvas argued, was the question of imdue aggregation. Tlu; issue was adinitted to have far teaching iinportance. Appeilant was Doreeu Mary Kngelbeiger, aged 22, who u islied to pureliase a property for her brolher, aged 1(5. i ihe grounds of the refusal were timi ihe purchase invrdved undue aggregation because tlie family already had suflieient land. "The qucstion ritised by these proceedings is whether lliese tribunuls aet j witliin their jurisdicliou if tliev have regard to imdue aggregation not by the [iroposed puivhaser Imt by someone else," said Mr. .lustiee Cornisli. After quoting seetiou .'10, sub-seetion of tlie Servieemen 's Settlenient "" and Land Saies Act, he added;. "In my opinion ihe Land Saies ('onunittee and JjSiikI Saies Court are entitled to refuse consent to tlie saie and purchase of land if tlie effect of purehaser 's aequisition of land would, in their opinion, result in undue aggregation oi' land by any person at all. It is true that in perfoi'ming its dnty 'to.have regard to the desirability of prevent ing undue aggregation of land', tiie committee is ;clfarged tp. take . inVi account 'tlie eircumstanees of the partieulnr case and all other relevent cdnsiderations incJudiiig. in partieular, area of other lands already held by him (tlie purclmser ) but this does not me'an that the area of land already held by the purehaser is ihe sole criterion of undue aggregation of land. There may be other criteria j — other eonsiderations relevant to the iiujuirv whether undue aggregation will result from tlie propnsed sale. In inv ipinion aggregation may be de faeto I ased 011 use. It need not necessarily be de jiire in tlie sense that it is based m owuersliip. Whether, if tliere be aggregation, it is undue is entirelv a matter for tlie land settlenient tribunal. Aggregation is adding land to land. It is inereasiug Ihe area over wititdi a person ltas control. Tliis need not be a legal cmjtrol. The I>asis of it is im-, niateria]. It may be ownershij) or con- ( ractual right or it may be sentnncnt but if the result of tlie purchase be that one person gets power to control Ihe use of more land Hian is considered bv land settlenient tribunals us necessarv for tlie requirements of Iffmself and his dependants, then in that case it is •ompetent for those tribunals (o regard ihe case im oue of undue aggregation. "