The Surveyor General has ruled out taking action over the 1999 survey of a disputed Matapouri land block, saying the matter is up to the courts to decide.
Friends of Matapouri and Te Whanau o Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust have lodged High Court action against the Department of Conservation, Land Information
New Zealand and Attorney General Michael Cullen over the land.
The dispute centres on a prime 1.1ha piece of privately-owned beachfront land at Matapouri, which the groups want returned to Crown ownership. They say the land is worth about $10 million.
The groups said the land and its wahi tapu sites originally formed part of the Otito Reserve but was wrongly converted to private ownership through a surveying error in 1999.
The land is owned by members of the Ringer family - Val Monk, John Ringer and Martin Ringer - who say the property was bought legally by their grandfather Jock Morrison in 1912. They will fight any court action, and have welcomed Surveyor General Don Grant's decision not to require the 1999 survey adjoining Otito Scenic Reserve to be corrected.
Mr Grant said the historical survey evidence on the boundary between the adjoining private land and the reserve contained a "level of conflict and ambiguity" that meant he was not sufficiently convinced there was an error.
He considered a report on the issue, prepared for DoC by former Surveyor General Tony Bevin, before making his decision.
"In any event, the dispute over the boundary will be decided by the courts," he said.
John Ringer said he and the other landowners had been distressed by the court action, and were relieved by the news.
"Since our grandfather first bought this land in 1912, our families have lived and worked here and we look forward to our grandchildren and their children continuing this involvement," he said.
Leonie Molloy, speaking on behalf of Friends of Matapouri and Te Whanau o Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust, said the groups were also looking forward to the court action.
She said the groups believed the Bevin report, a review of the 1999 and previous surveys, actually supported their case.
"We saw the report as another step on our journey of gathering enough evidence to show we are correct in saying that part of the land should not have been put into private ownership," she said. A date to hear the case has yet to be set.
