THE WASTE LAND BOARD.

Southland Times, Issue 1726, 11 April 1873, Page 2

THE WASTE LAND BOARD.

At the meeting of the Waste Land Board on Tuesday, there were present the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and Messrs Baker, Dundas, M'Arthur, and M'Culloch. The following applications were granted: — George Langlands, 40 acres, New River Hundred ; Richard William Williams, 519 acres, Aparima Hundred. George Webster and Eichard Gibbs applied for 2000 acres, on run 148, Hokanui diatrict. This land, being within two miles of the proposed WintonKingston line of railway, waa understood to be reserved from sale. Mr Webster, and on hi* behalf, Mr Harvey, solicitor, contended that no such reserve had ever been actual! v made. The Commissioner of Crown Lands read the telegrams and correspondence with the Provincial Government on the subject of a reserve of two miles in width on each side of the railway, from which it appeared that the Superintendent had, in the first instance, informed the Board, by telegram, that the land was reserved, and subsequently desired the Board to make such a reserve. The Board replied that they did not, under the existing law, possess the power to do so, and directed His Honor's attention to clause 16 of the Southland Waste Lands Act, 1865, conferring on the Superintendent the power of making reserves for a " specific object." His Honor replied that he did not consider that this clause applied to the proposed reserve, and again requested the Board to make the reserve. The Board then requested that the opinion of the Provincial Solicitor ii. ight be taken on the Bubject, and it appeared that the first intimation by the Superintendent that the land was reserved, had been regarded as having an interim effect in withdrawing the land from sale. Acting on this view, a previous application for the same land, by the same applicants, had been refused by the Board. It was further stated that parties, who might possibly have intended to apply for land within the limits of the alleged reserve, had been informed by the officers of the Survey department that the land was actually reserved, and that they might possibly thereby have been prevented from making application for such land. The Board then considered the question as to whether the alleged reserve had ever actually been made, and decided that it had not. Mr M'Arthur, however, expressed a contrary opinion The question of granting Messrs Gibbs and Webster's application was then put to the Board by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, as chairman, who, in doing so, called attention to clause 29 of the Southland Waste Lands Act Amendment Act, 1867, empowering the Board to refuse applications for land, the sale of which would render less available for sale, or injuriously affect the value of, other waste lands in the Province. Mr B arvey contended that the Board had no power whatever to refuse the application except under this clause, and further that the sale of the land in question would not injuriously affect the value of other waste lands. Messrs Dundas and M'Culloch voted that the application be granted, as it did not in their opinion come under the operation of this clause. Mr Baker stated that he did not oppose the application under the clause quoted, on the ground that the . value of other waste land would be impaired by its being granted, but because, although he had already decided that the reserve had never been legally made, he considered that as the land was regarded by the Survey department as withdrawn from Bale, and parties, who might have been intending applicants, had been informed to that effect by officers of the department, the whole of the land within two miles of the line should now be advertised open for sale for a month, before granting any application. He therefore opposed the granting of the application. Mr Webster represented that such a course would be unfair to him, the parti-

culars of his application now having been made public, and further argued that the Board had no power by law to refuse his application, unless on tlie ground that the sale would injure the value of other waste laud, which wao not alleged. Mr M'Arthur voted for the refusal of the application on the ground that the land had been legally reserved, and also on the further ground that the particular land in question came under the operation of clause 29 of the Amendment Act, as its sale would injure the sale of other waste lands. The Commissioner of Crown Lands ■stated that it was understood that the Board ought to act, when practicable, in harmony witb the intentions of the Government as to the sale or disposal of land, and that there could be no doubt of the intention of the Government to withdraw the land for two miles on each side of th© railway line from sale. Still the Board had come to the conclusion that the reserve for thia purpose had' never been egaily made, and that being so, the enly -power the Board had to refuse the application lay in clause 29 of the Amendment Act, if th« sale of tb« land really would injuriously af ect the sale of other waste land. The majority of the Board had already decided that the present application did not come under the operation of that clause. There was therefore no legal alternative but to grant the application. The Commissioner of Crown Lands having no deliberative vote, and the Board being equally divided, he would accordingly give his casting vote in favor of granting the application, there being no other course open.