Colonial Secretary’s Office,
Auckland, 12th July, 1855.

Sir,—I am directed by His Excellency the Officer administering the Government to transmit herewith to your Honour a copy of the correspondence that has taken place—as specified in the margin—between the Surveyor-General, 26th May, 1855.

Surveyor-General to Colonial Secretary, 31st May, 1855.
Surveyor-General to Colonial General and the Waste Lands Commissioner to Sub-Inspector-General, 14th June, 1855.

Surveyor-General to Colonial Secretary, 2nd July, 1855. Farmer to some land disputes in the Hunua Block.

The Board, your Honor will perceive, in Resolution No. 34 (copy of which is enclosed in the Surveyor General’s letter of the 2nd instant to myself) considers, in reference to this claim, “that it could not be justified in undertaking to decide what appears more particularly to appertain to the department of the Law Officer of the Crown.”

It appears to His Excellency that, on this point, the Waste Lands Board takes an erroneous view of its position and duties. The 75th Section of the Land Regulations now in force in this Province provides for the determination by the Commissioners “of all disputes and differences relating, or incident to the sale, letting, disposal and occupation of the Waste Lands of the Crown.” In fact the Board is invested with judicial functions for the settlement of all such questions, including those which arise between the Government and individuals.

The question in this case is one between the Surveyor General on the part of the Government on the one side, and Mr. Farmer on the other, and one therefore which it was obviously the intention of the Regulations to provide for. Under these circumstances, His Excellency cannot understand on what grounds Judicial Officers can give it as their opinion that a case, within their jurisdiction, brought before them for decision, should be referred to the legal adviser of one of the parties in differences.

The Board of Commissioners is a Court of Justice, as much as the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and it would be obviously improper for the Judge of the latter Court to refer questions, in which the Government are concerned, to the Attorney General for his decision thereon. This reason induced His Excellency to abstain from communicating to the Commissioners an opinion which might have had the effect of improperly influencing their judgment.

His Excellency now wishes clearly to understand from the Board, whether it declines performing what appears to him to be an obvious and important part of their duties—the hearing and determination of disputes and differences relating to the sale, etc., of land. If so, the Officer administering the Government cannot interfere, as the department of the Waste Lands Board is not under the control of the General Government, but it will then be a proper subject for consideration, as to the best manner in which proper effect can be given to the provisions of the 6th clause of the Regulations, as the General Government are of course pledged to seeing that the contracts which they have made are properly fulfilled.

I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your Honor’s most obedient,
Humble servant,
ANDREW SINCLAIR,
Colonial Secretary.

To His Honor
the Superintendent of Auckland.

Superintendent’s Office, Auckland,
19th July 1855.

Sir,—I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, covering the correspondence between the Surveyor General and the Waste Land Board on the subject of a disputed claim to some land in the Hunua block—explaining to me, on this point, the position of the Waste Land Board and its duties—and also requesting to be informed by the Board whether they decline to determine this and other differences.

I have the honor to state that a copy of your communication has been transmitted to the Waste Land Board.

Although unable clearly to perceive why the question is brought under the cognizance of the Provincial Government, I have perused the correspondence with attention, and have pleasure in communicating to the General Government some remarks which I have made upon it, and which perhaps may tend to an elucidation of the difficulty.

You inform me that “the 75th clause of the Land Regulations now in force, in this Province, provides for the determination by the Commissioners of all disputes and differences relating or incident to the sale, letting, disposal, and occupation of the Waste Lands of the Crown.”

Upon referring to the Land Regulations, I find that the 75th clause, incompletely quoted by you, is as follows:

“All applications in reference to which any such notice shall have been given, and all disputes and differences relating or incident to the sale, letting, disposal, and occupation of, or to any act to be done under those Regulations or to any interpretation or meaning thereof shall be heard and determined at meetings of the Board.”

It is obvious that the disputes and differences to be heard and determined by the Board must have arisen under the new Land Regulations.

It appears therefore that the General Government must be in error, when assuming that Mr. Farmer’s case is one of those which it was the intention of the Land Regulations to provide for. The Regulations seem to have a prospective, not a retrospective operation.