Douglas v The Valuer-General; Douglas v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 188

Re: Appeals against valuations of the Valuer-General Shire of Ooncurry Margaret A Douglas v. The Valuer-General (V89-394) Keith M. Douglas v. The Valuer-General (V89-395) - DECISION - (Hearing at Cloncurry) IANDCOURT, BRISBANE. 27th April, 1990. Margaret A Douglas has lodged in the Land Court a Notice of Appeal (V89- 394) against the valuation of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Market Garden Area No. 107 Parish of Cloncurry containing 1.745 hectares under Valuation Roll No. 606. The Valuer-General in revaluing the lands in the Shire as at 31st March, 1988 has valued this parcel at $4,000. The appellant contends to a value of $1,750. Keith M. Douglas has lodged an appeal (V89-395) against the valuation of the Valuer-General of Miners Homestead Perpetual Lease No. 5684 Parish of Cloncurry containing an area of 3.193 hectares. In this case the Valuer-General originally valued the land at $4,000 but following objection amended that valuation to $3,500. Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Ayt this is the value which is the subject of this . appeal. The appellant in this case contends to a value of $1,500. Appeal V89-394 concerns a parcel of land located at the comer of Hart Street and Kennedy Road on the western side of Cloncurry about 2kms from the Cloncurry Shopping area. Both streets are dirt tracks and access can be cut to Cloncurry during flood times. It is zoned "Rural Residential" under the relevant Town Plan and has a dwelling erected upon it. [1990] QLC 188 -- 1 of 4 -- .. - Page2 - The grounds of appeal in this case are:- "1. This is Market Garden Area zoned Rural Residential outside Council serviced sewerage and water also out of postal delivery. 2. Refer Cloncurry Shire Council Minutes 16.12.88. 3. Area being eroded by water drain off. 4. Valuator General gives no valid reason to increase since last objection. 5. This area has been drought declared since over last five years. 6. Upheld Land Court appeals are being challenged continually by Valuator General Dept." Mr. Douglas says that this land is held under a market garden area lease and may be forfeited if it is not used for the purposes under the conditions in the lease. He says that he has been endeavouring to grow fruit trees on the land commencing firstly with mangos but at present he is trying to establish citrus and other trees. His attempts to establish and work this land is made difficult by the presence of two (2) gullies through the property and the high incidence of erosion. He resides on the land and there are horse stables also established. Mr. Douglas in his evidence refers to Minutes of Proceedings of a meeting of the Local Authority when it was resolved that the authority objected to the high valuations placed on rural lands around the town itself. He complains that the Valuer-General has not given any valid reason to increase the valuation of this land from $1,000 to $3,500 and that his successful appeal to the Land Court following the last general revaluation in 1983 has been challenged by succeeding new valuations. He says that this parcel of land has been used by him for grazing purposes and he does not believe that it can be used for other purposes, nor is it suitable as a residential site. The land the subject of Appeal No. V89-395 is situated on Saleyards Road, north- east of Cloncurry and about 3kms from the Cloncurry Shopping Centre. It is zoned "Rural" under the relevant Town Plan. The grounds of appeal in relation to this case are:- -- 2 of 4 -- ,. - Page 3 - "1. Refer minutes doncurry Shire Council 16-12-88. 3. This area is drought declared and has been effected for over five years. 3. Valuator General Dept have not given any valid reason to increase valuation from $1000 to 3500. 4. Upheld Land Court appeals are being challenge by succeeding new valuations." Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by valuer Mr. M.J. Campbell who was not the officer who undertook the valuations in the first instance but in the absence of that officer he has looked at the evidence used to establish the value and agrees with the figures now contended for. As a basis of valuation in each case he has had regard to two (2) sales, one (1) in Palmer Street with an area of 1.821 hectares which sold in March 1988 for $4,750 and another in Perkins Street with an area of 4,553 sq. metres which sold in August 1987 for $3,000. He makes a comparison between these sale lands arid the subject lands to arrive at his valuation. In each case he has considered the highest and best use for the land is as a "Rural Residential" site. He says that within the "Rural" zoning. for the second parcel a home could be constructed upon the land. There was a deal of cross-examination making comparisons· between the sales and the subject parcels, but in the final result this is of no moment. Set out on the back of the form of Notice of Appeal to the Land Court is the provisions of Section 21 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (as amended). This section deals with the procedure to be adopted in proceeding to the Land Court. It reads: "(1) Subject to this secti9n an owner who has duly objected to the Valuer-General against a valuation made by the Valuer-General may, if dissatisfied with the decision of the Valuer-General upon the objection, appeaJ. to the Land Court. (2) Except as hereinafter in this section provided, such an appeal shall not lie unless it is instituted within sixty days after the date of issue to the owner concerned by the Valuer-General of notice of his decision upon the objection (which date of issue shall be stated in such notice). (3) An appeal under this section shall be instituted by filing in the Land Court registry a notice of appeal." -- 3 of 4 -- • -I - Page 4 - Under the provisions of Subsection 3 the appeal is limited to the grounds stated in the Notice of Appeal and the burden proving any and every such ground shall be upon the owner. There is no provision for the Court to allow an appellant to add to his grounds of appeal and the appeal can only be decided upon the evidence relevant to those grounds. Mr. Campbell was aware of all of the matters raised in the Notices of Appeal. He was aware of the previous valuation determined by the Land Court but he properly accepts the responsibility placed on him to undertake a valuation at a relevant date. He is required to look at the land at that date having regard to evidence of what unimproved land is bringing in the market place at that time. Circumstances may change between valuation dates and it is appropriate for valuations to be increased or decreased according to the sales evidence available at the date of valuation, which in this case is 31st March, 1988. Many other matters were raised d~ring the course of this hearing but they are not covered by the Grounds of Appeal and I cannot take them into consideration in determining these appeals. Mr. Campbell states that he has relied on sales to form his opinion on appropriate values for the subject land, and there is no evidence in the Grounds of Appeal to challenge his procedure. It follows that the appellants within the Grounds of Appeal have failed to discharge the onus to show that the Valuer-General has erred in the ·valuations and the appeals must fail. Had the appellants chosen to state in the Notice of Appeal that they believe the valuations to be excessive, I could have reviewed these other matters, but I am barred by the statute from doing this. Accordingly appeals V89-394 and V89-395 are dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General in each case is affirmed. (Signed: D.J. Barry) President of the I ;md Court -- 4 of 4 --