Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council & Another v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act.

País/Territorio
Australia
Tipo de la corte
Otros
Fecha
Ago 29, 2008
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
Juez
Sheahan.
Número de referencia
[2008] NSWLEC 241
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Medio ambiente gen., Tierra y suelos
Palabra clave
Derechos tradicionales/derechos consuetudinarios Tenencia de tierras Propiedad de extranjeros Pueblos indígenas
Resumen
On 22 February 2000 the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) lodged aboriginal land claims relating to land in the Berowra area of Hornsby Shire. On 19 May 2000 the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC) also lodged a land claim in relation to land in the Berowra area (together, the Land Councils). On 25 November 2005 the Minister administering the Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913 refused each of the claims on the basis that: (a) part of the lands were used by the public for recreational activities such as bushwalking and therefore the land was ―needed or likely to be needed for the essential public purpose of nature conservation; (b) part of the lands were ―needed or likely to be needed as residential land; (c) the whole of the lands were ―lawfully used and occupied by Hornsby Shire Council; and (d) the whole of the lands were ―lawfully used and occupied‖ by the general public, ―for the purpose of public recreation and bush regeneration. Following the rejection of the land claims by the Crown Lands Minister the Land Councils exercised the right given to them by s 36(6) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (the Act) to appeal to the Land and Environment Court. To prove that the land the subject of the claims was not ―claimable Crown lands the Crown Lands Minister relied on certificates issued by him pursuant to s 36(8) of the Act. The certificates stated that the relevant land ―was on the date when [the claims were] made needed or likely to be needed for an essential public purpos. The relevant public purpose was not identified in the certificates but was revealed in evidence before the Court to be nature conservation. The judge held that the Minister had not established that the Crown lands the subject of the claims were required as residential lands or for nature conservation, and were in part already lawfully used or occupied. The judge also held the certificates to be invalid and therefore inadmissible. The primary judge therefore held that the Minister did not establish that there were proper grounds for rejection of the land claims.
Texto completo
COU-156847.pdf