Complex Situation Arises Over Land Classification

Chronicle (Levin), 9 August 1949, Page 6

Complex Situation Arises Over Land Classification

MAGISTRATE'S POWERS QUESTIONED The special and wide diseretionary powers deputed to a stipendiary magistrate under Section 103 of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act, 1941, were questioned to some extent in an uiiusual application which came hefore Mr. Justiee Gresson in the Supreme Conrt at Palmerston North yesterday, Arising out of a written determination hy Mr. J. R. Herd S.M. on two appeals hy Otaki settlers against the classification of certain of their lands for rating purposes, the Manawatu Catchment Board, which classified the land, sought a writ of- prohibition against the Magistrate Ao restrain him from takihg further action in the matter. It is imderstood that this is the first time jndicial powersunder this section of the Act have been tested, and Mr. G. I-. McGregor obtained permission from the judge to appear on hehalf of the Solicitor-General and to oppose the application for a writ of prohibition.

Mr F. G. Opie represented the Manawatu Catchment Board, and Mr C. F. Atmore, of Otaki, appear ed for the two defendants to the action, E. H. Moftati and W. G. Taylor, settlers whose land is riparian to the Waitohu Stream, neai Otaki. For the purposes of collecting a works rate for certain control projects j on the Otaki River, the Manawatu Catchment Board engaged classifiers to classify all land likely to receive direct or indirect benefit from the improvements. The land so classified was gradeo into categories varyiug from B to E, graded downward according to the amou'nt of benelit estimated to ^ be likely to accrue, land in category E bemg eonsidered likely to receive no benefits. When two appeals came before the Magistrate he reduced portions of tht appellants' lands from B to C and from 0 to D, and against this decision tht Catchment Board made 110 appeal. Hov\ ever, in the latter part of his determina tion the Magistrate ruled that certain of the lands be rated as if their^ valut were £20 an acre, wliereas the Govern ment valuatiou was approxiniately £5" an acre, and it was against the impie mentation of this direetion that tht board appealed yesterday, the basis oi the argument in favour of the applica tion bemg that the Magistrate liad cx eeeded his jurisdittion 111 arbitrarily hx ing the value of the land. Crown's Objection. Mr McGregor at the outset moveo that the application for a writ of prohibition could not lie because tne Mag istrate was not called upon to take an\ further action. His functions had cea> ed when he had signed his determina tion, and, therefore, there was nothing to prohibit. He was supported in thest contentions by Mr Atmore.

His Honour expressed considerabk doubt as to whether the Catchment Board could serve any useful purpost even if it succeeded in obtaining a ' prohibition. However, he indicateo that he proposed to reserve the poini f because he eoukl not give a, decision without further dcliberation, althougij he thought the objection appeared to l>e well founded. It was questionablt whether a writ of prohibition was the best remedy, and he thought ratlier that the Catchment Board should j havt sought to liave portion or all of tht Magistrate 's determination quashea, revised or re- written. After indicating his intention tc reserve the point, his Honour asked^Mi Opie to continue with his main contentions in support of a prohibition, anu legai arguments were developed aiong tlns line.

Rights of Ratepayers. A complex but highly interesting point which was debated at some lengtn but without final determination' was tht question of who was the final afithorit} for fixing valuations. Mr McGregor gaici that when the case was presented to the Magistrate 011 tfie appeal of the two settlers against the classification, the Catchment Board had not only _sul> mitted tjie details of land sub-division for classification purposes but also hau set out the rates to be apportioned on the various types of land. He askeu whether in doing this the board 's classi(iers had exceeded their powers anu, perhaps, deprived the settlers of tlieir ordinary rights to raising objections which they would have if the changing of valuations had been done by the Valuer-General.

His Honour queried whether tlns was the reason for Mr McGregor 's appeaiance on behalf of the Solicitor-Generai. Was it to see whether the Valuer-Gen-eral's authority as sole valuer was being challengedf Mr McGregor said he was really there because after consultation witn the Solicitor-Generai it had been thought advisable to watcli the pioceeuings because of the special powers - oi magistrates under the new Act. Board's View Mr Opie tolu the court that the np portionment of values had been made for informative purposes only. Tliey were only tentative and were by no means final. The actual apportionment could only be made by the Valuer-Gen-eral, although he admitted that the iigures given to the Magistrate wcie thos.; which would fonn the basis of the Catchment Board's reconuuendations to

the Valuer-General. He contended, however, that by virtue of the Magistrate 's determination the values of those particular' lands could not bc ehanged, that they had been arbitrarily fixed, and that, the Magistrate 's _de termination was, in eft'ect, a direetion to the Catchment Board. The matter might have been considerably simplified in the first place, said Mr Opie, if the Catchment Board, mstead of fixing benefits to be derived from the river works in terms of £.s.d., had awarded points, leaving tbe aiuount to be fixed by the Valuer-Gen-eral. In such a case the Magistrate would have been concerned only witli eonsideration of land classification, and .10 objection Could be raised to his po.vers in that respect. It was only whai „he matter was reduced to one of monev hat the complication arose, and it was lere that tlie board contended the Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction. As to Mr McGregor 's contention that .he Magistrate 's functions ceased when le put down his pen after signing Ino leterminatiou, Mr Opie said that acivcly the Magistrate might have uo urther part to play but the effects oi' lis deternnnation vvere continumg, anu exercisect control up to the time the las! penny was colJected to pay off the lo ui raised to finance the river works. Only ui pursuance of the classification Eot is approved by the Magistrate did the 'atchment Board have any powers to rate the lands for works purposes. jyi.r Opie pointed out that tne ordinir y avenues for rectifying the Magiswate ' s decision were.closed to the ^atchment Board which was expressiy efused the right to, appeal by the Sji' jonservation and Rivers Control Council.

l'aradoxical as it might seem, cotn nented his Honour, it appeared to him fiiat counsel 's wisest course might be vO have the Catchment Board p'rohibn. cd. This would adequately preveui iction being tak*en on the Magistrate 's determination. ® • . Writ— Not Order! ^ Opening his subnnssions, Mr Atmore laid he had been about to suggest whai iis Honour had just suggested — that counsel should move to have hnnseh proliibited. "I have no occasion to prohibit niyself, " drily interposed Mr Opie. His Honour: 1 do not think I sug* gested Alr Opie should prohibit liunself. If I did do so|- I- reially meant that ie should move to>liave: a writ of proiiibition taken against his clients, the ..'atchment Board.

Mr Atmore: That s as I understand .he position, Sir. 1 did not mean nlr. Opie should take ont a prohibition ordr against liimself! In reply to his Honour, Mr Atmore mid he was not disputing the Magistrate 's determination but joined *witb Alr McGregor in submitting that the Catchment Board's present appeai , could not lie because the Magisiraie had no further functions in the matter. He explained that his two clients were owners of land riparian to the Waitohu Htream, a meandering watercourse,- yet. their land had been classified 'on the same basis as land riparian to the Otaki River which was a fast-moving river earryiug a terrific volume of water in ilood times.

Decision Reserved. At the conclusion of iegal argument, his Honour said that the position was a compiex one and he thought it desirable that his decision should be expressed in writing. Of course, he added, it could involve only the application for a wiit of prohibition and as matters stood he could not see that it would advance the issue vcry far. The area of land classified by the Catchment Board totalled 60,000 acres.