LEASE OF CROWN LAND.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5192, 17 October 1927, Page 3

LEASE OF CROWN LAND.

POSITION OF OPATHTO BLOCK. BOROUGH SEEKS LEGAL OPINION. The question as to whether a person leasing land from the Crown was liable for rates on the area issued was brought under the notice of tihe Paeroad Borough Council on Thursday night. ■ln response tp a claim for rates from the tenant the following letter was received from the Commissioner of Crown Lands: — “I have to acknowledge receipt of your memo of September 17, and note the opinion of the council in connection with the temporary occupation of the sections by Mr B. Neil, Paeroa. “In reply I would like to suggest that your council is rather stretching the definition of the word ‘occupier,’ which, according to the Act quoted by you, ‘means the person by whom or on whose, behalf any rateable property is actually occupied, if such person is in occupation by virtue of a tenancy which was for not less than six months certain.’ “The occupation by Mr Neil is not certain to a week or a day, and is terminable at a momentsf notice. You will see, therefore, that he has not six months’ certain tenancy,’ and does not, therefore, come within the definition of ‘occupier.’

“If your contention has any substance, then it would be impossible for the Crown to temporarily lease any of its vacant sections, as in all cases the rates exceed by a considerable margin the- amount that could be collected for temporary occupation. The fact of being able to let vacant 'sections for grazing purposes assists in a large number of cases to keep the sections from reverting to second growth and the spread of noxious weeds, etc. This enables the department to more readily dispose of the sections on a permanent tenure than would otherwise be the case and this is certainly in the best interests of all concerned.

“As far as Mr Neil is concerned, he is not an occupier within the meaning of the Act and is not liable to your council for rates, and he has been so advised.

“If you deem it' necessary to further discuss the matter I shall be glad to hear from you at your convenience.”

In a second letter dated October 11 the Commissioner wrote acknowledging the council’s letter of October 6, enclosing copies of correspondence between the council and the Valuation Department in connection with the purchase of the lOpatito Block, and with regard to the purchase the Commissioner said he did not understand the reason for the Valuation Department advising th® council that that land was subject to section 74 of the Land for Settlement Act, 1925, as the land in question had been purchased under the Native Lands Act, 1909, tihe proclamation declaring the land to be Crown land issued under section 14 of the. Native Lands Act, 1925, as. the 1914.

The Mayor rejmarked “that it was a beauty.” On the motion of Cr. Porritt, seconded by Cr. Flatt, it was resolved to refer the matter to counsel for the Municipal Association. The Mayor agreed that, the opinion would be wejll worth having, and should prove particularly interesting to other local bodies.