VALUATION OF LAND.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4486, 1 November 1922, Page 3

VALUATION OF LAND.

HAUBAKI PLAINS CASES. CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION. A compensation court opened at Thames yesterday, Mr Justice Herdmap presiding, to hear three claims in connection with landi on Hauraki Plains taken by the Public Works Department.

'William Deeble (Mr Ostler) claimed £95 an acre in respect of 10'2 acres o® farming land at Kerepeehi. Mr Meredith appeared for the Crown. The case for claimant set out that in January, 1920, notice was gazetted of the intention to take land for drainage purposes. Nothing further was heard -of it and ih December, 1920, claimant put the land up for sale, this being stopped on the day of the sale by a telegram from the Department,, stating, its intent’on to take the land. On May 19, 1921 the Department took the land, and in September, 1921, claimant lodged a claim for £95 per acre. The present action was being brought to determine the amount of compensation.

Mr Ostler, said Deeble purchased one section in 1911 at 50s an acre and the other two in 1914 for 80s. In 1919 and through 1920 similar land was selling at £9O to £lOO per acreThe Government offered £4620 in full settlement, or to return 86 acres. This offer showed the land was not required for drainage purposes. He contended cpmpensatioii should date from the first proclamation, and be based On the value of the land in the. market at that time. Mr Meredith Submitted that compensation should be based on the value of the land less all the value put on it by the drainage scheme; in other words, that compensation should be based on market value prior to authorisation of the scheme. Statutory authority was given by the Hauraki Plains' Act. Not a penny put on the land by reason of the Act could be taken into consideration when assessing compensation. Mr Meredith suggested that as the case was of the greatest importance, a large amount of money being involved. it should be stated for a decision by the Full Court. His Honour agreed, and suggested that claimant in the present case should receive interest, as the course. suggested would entail a delay of proceedings.