DRAINAGE BOARD’S LAND CLASSIFICATION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3624, 9 April 1927, Page 2

DRAINAGE BOARD’S LAND CLASSIFICATION.

AN IRREGULAR PROCEDURE,

S.M. UPHOLDS RATEPAYERS’ OBJECTIONS.

An important ruling was given in the local S.M. Court by Mr. J. L. Stour'S.MS.,; yesterday, when Messrs Stevens, F. Enston and Austin (Mr. P. E. Baldwin) and Messrs King and Co. and Paiaka Ltd. (Mr. limes) appealed against the reclassification of their lands by the Moutoa Drainage Board. Mi-. M. B. Bergin represented the Board.

Mr. Baldwin said that the ease presented three points: (1) That the classification made by the Board was not an amendment as contemplated by the Act; (2) that it was not a re-classification as contemplated by the Act and (3) that there had been no advertisement in connection with the amendment or classification as required by section 34, sub. section 2 of the Land Drainage Act, 1908. This third point he emphasised particularly. The most important function of any local body, he said, was its power of taxation. In Drainage Boards this power of taxation depended entirely on the classification and every ratepayer in the classification district had immediate interest in the classification of every other person in the district and was entitled to know how lie and also how his neighbours were classified. A most important point was that every ratepayer should have public notice of a classification. In the cases under review there bad been no poper notice of classification given. The advertisement relating to the classification, which appeared once in the Manawatu Herald, was produced at this stage and read. Mr. Innes in corroboration of previous counsel, asked it the Drainage Board had re-classified tiic* three sections referred to or had they treated what they had done as an amendment to the classification list? If so, the Board had no power to re-classify part of its district. Mr Innes read at this stage a copy of the minute from the Moutoa Drainage Board’s hooks wherein it stated that the land referred to had been re-elassified from grade B to grade A and a section of land belonging to Mr. Robinson from grade B to grade C. Continuing, Mr. Innes said the Act provided for the classification of all lands but no word in the Act or Amendment dealt with piece-meal classification. The Amendment said that the classification list might be amended and this was to correct any errors that might appear in it. If a Board had power to re-elassL fy it would hardly he fair. Members of the Board were ratepayers and it was quite possible that some of the members might say: “We will give ourselves two months’ notice and put our land in class C.” Such a provision would leave the door open to all sorts of swindles.

The S. M.: The Board cannot reclassify land by minute. It appeared as if the Board could not reclassify unless it appointed someone qualified to do the work. Mr. limes: Messrs King and Co’s, property has been re-classified from class B to class A, while the property adjoining and subject to exactly the same flood menace, etc., was left in class B.

The S.M.: It. would be a dangerous proceeding for a Board to reclassify on its own. It would b e f ar better to act on the advice of qualified men, whose opinion would always be upheld in a Court of law whereas the Court would always look with suspicion on the action of interested parties. It was very improper for a Board, when interested, to act alone. Referring to the advertisement, he said that he did not think the advertisement referring to the ratepayers’ list was notice of classification being made.

Mr. Bergin contended that Section 34 of the Act was a procedure clause, not mandatory hut directory. The S.M.: I cannot hold that section 2is directory. Notice must be given. Continuing, he said that he did not think the notice given by the Board was as required by the Act. People must have notice, he added.

The Chairman of the Moutoa Drainage Board . (Mr J. Chrystall) intimated through the Board’s counsel that: each ratepayer had been given individual notice. . The S.M.: That does not matter. Public notice must be given. Continuing, he said that the Boaid would be well advised before making a classification to act under section 34 oi the Act.

Mr Bergin: The Board would have been well advised to have taken steps legally in the first place. The S.M. said that where a Board was interested personally it. should n<q on the advice of one or more uninterested and qualified persons. The classification would then have a better chance of standing than if made by themselves. Under the circumstances he ruled that there was no classification.

Costs amounting to £l3 14s fid were entered against the Board.