Proceeding Under Section 65(1) of the Lands & Titles Act 1969.
Before F. Pitakaka 2nd Class Magistrate, held at Buala Station in Santa Ysabel of the Central Province to-day the 20th of April 1979 at 0900hrs.
The appeal lodged by Mrs. Caroline Hebala Maetia of the orther parties on the 5th January 1979 and also another Appeal lodged by Mr. Paul Kokoma on the 13th December 1978. The Appeal is against the Acquistion Officer's determination on the extention of Buala Station made on the 17th November 1978, which agreement made with DANIEL DARA, of Bula, ALBAN HAGEMANA of Buala, ANDERSON RIUMANA of Buala and LOT LOHA of Buala for the purchase of the Land known to be SOPASARE near Buala Station for the purpose of extending the station. The purchase price is of $1006.90 agreed.
Present: The Appealant Mrs. Caroline Hebala Maetia, Mr. Paul Kokomana.
And the Vendors:	DANIEL DARA, ALBAN HAGEMANA, HENRY HUGA, ANDERSON RIUMANA AND LOT LOHA.	
Interpreter:	CECIL RHODES KUSAPA from MARINGE language to PIDGIN	
The Court first to proceed with to whether both Appealant were representing the same tribe or not and which land they were appeal against to the SOPASARE OR SELEO.
Appealant: 	Mrs Maetia I appealed against the Acquisition Officer over the SOPASARE LAND.
Mr. Paul Kokomana I appealed against the SOPASARE LAND.	
Both appealant are representing different tribes and different interest in the land.
The Court went through with the Appeal points of Mr. Paul Kokomana which lodged in time allowed and Court accepted.
After going through his points of Appeal Court asked the Appealant whether he wish to add any other thing or other points before Court to further proceeded.
Mr. P. Kokomana = I wish to something in addition to my points lodged in court, and read back to me.
My grandmother is Lolu she is the owner of the Land and this is known to many people in the area. And because of this I feel that my name should be included in the agreement as Vendors. My grandmother give permissions to the people who settled in the area. Until to-day people who settled in the land or area they recognized Lolu and respected as she is the one who give permission for the comers to come and settled when the Missioneries arrived. SOPASARE is the name of the land and my tribe is NAPIMIRUPUNE. POSOMOGO tribe is not my tribe. My grand mother is the really land owner. The acquisition Officer did not publish the Public notice to Tithro. To prove that I own the land is the following: 
(1) a stone near the Church is ours it was originaly kept by LEAI a brother of LOLU and when the Christianity received the stone was brought to the Church from its original worship place. I did not own any properties in the land such as coconut or other economical trees. I did not know whether my tribe have any worshiping place in the land or not. But what I know is that my grandmother own the land.
I signed the first agreement but during the last meeting Public Hearing my name is deleted. This is when I did not attend the meeting. Henry Huga replaced me but he was not also present during that hearing. Henry Huga should not be included as vendors as we are not close relatives. I do not know which tribe he originated from.
The Acquisition Officer did not mention when the Public Hearing be held.
(2) No public notice published at Tithro and
(3) on the 17th November is the School days which every Maringa people to attend.
No Public notice for Public hearing is published at Nareabu and Thithiro as the Acquisition Officer stated. Legnouga's name is not included in the vendors list as he lost the case between him and ALBAN HAGEMANA in a local court case. Thats all I wish to say and I will call witnesses to prove this case. I accepted the land be sold to Commissioner of Lands for the Extention of Buala Station but my name be included as vendors, none of these (5) five representatives (Vendors) were represnting my tribe. They were only representing the 3 clans. I therefore, wish that should I be representing my clan.
Adjourn. for 10 minutes:
Court Resumes
Mrs. Maetia his appeal to be heard by this afternoon 1.30 p.m.
Continue with Paul Kokomana's Appeal. The Vendors question to the Appealants.
D. DARA
I am not a land owner but lines representative so I have no question to ask him.
A. HAGEMANA
No question
H. HUGA
No question
A. RIUMANA
Although we have no properties in the land but the land is owned by Lolu my grandmother. I could not tell where the permission granted but I know the land is owned by Lolu my grandmother. The settlers settled in the land under the permission of Lolu my grandmother and they planted coconuts, Sago palm and etc. in the Land but not mean that they own the land.
During when Ngodoro make a spear line at Buala I did not know whether Lolu still alive or not but vihu is the person who get permission from Lolu for the people to settle at Buala. This people comes from LAGEBA village and their Leader is HEBALA. They are from Bogutu District. I am one of the trustees for Buala Station Land. I am not at Buala when SIKAPU held a court at KORASABA.
LOT LOHA 
I am not at home when my mother died so she could not show me the tambu places of Lolu. But the people of Buala or the settlers know that the land is owned by Lolu.
My witness support why Lolu owned the land. I heard a story that a person was changed in to a stone here but I cannot tell that story. I cannot tell about R:C.Symes putting Station at Buala Area after World War II. During those days I was working for Defence force.
Court adjourn until 1.30 p.m. this afternoon.
Court Resume again this afternoo. 
P.K. 1st Witness 
ANDREW HAVILEGU of Tithiro Village Santa Ysabel. Evidence given under oath. What I will tell the Court is regarding the history of the land where Buala Station situated and also the SOPASARE. My grandfather told me that the land where the Buala Station situated and SOPASARE is ours not belongs to POSOMOGO LINE. When a man called Vihu came to Buala he asked for the settlers who went to settle at Buala. These people they accompanied Hebala to Buala. So Vihu told them to ask Lolu the land owner.
One of the point is also a tambu stone which brought from the devil place to Buala Church and still there to-day. 2nd point is that my grandfather told me and also seen by myself is their devil place is where the Buala Hospital now build. That devil place is destroyed when the Hospital was build.
CROSS EX.by Vendors. 
D. DARA. 
No question
A. HAGEMANA 
No question
H. HUGA. 
No question
A. RIUMANA 
I only know what I have told already to court. What I have said is what my grandfather told me. Lolu's people have some other places to live and therefore, they give Buala Station for the settlers and themselves live to other land. The land where Buala Station situated is part of SOPASARE land and SOPASARE is also included. Nothing Lolu's planted properties in the SOPASARE land. I did not know where Lolu comes from or originally but he is from SOPASARE.
LOT LOHA
I do not know where the sone originated from but what I heard from my father is that the stone is the one they worshiped.
2nd P.K. WITNESS - CECIL TOGAMAI d.s. and states:
When the Church first arrived at Buala Haring District. Hebala one of the Priest first come to Maringe to Magalau asked for a place to live in. Because no place at Magalau so they asked Lolu the grandmother of Paul Kokoman and later they went to Vihu another Chief and Vihu told them to go to Lolu. Hebala therefore, get permission from Lolu before settled at Buala area. This history every body knows and we still keep it until to-day. During the congregation at Honiara this history was also concerted publicly.
CROSS EX. BY VENDORS 
D.DARA - No question 
A. HAGEMANA - No question 
H. HUGA - No question 
A. RIUMANA 
I do not know whether there are people live at Buala before the church first arrived Lolu was at Sango at that time near Tithiro while the settlers were at Magalau. Lolu only owns Buala area SOPASARE but Sango belongs to other people.
LOT LOHA No question
Thats the end of P. KOKOMANA'S WITNESS AND CASE.
VENDORS 
D. DARA - No question
A. HAGEMANA - Nothing to say
H. HUGA - Nothing to say
A. RIUMANA D.s. and states.
I did not believe that Lolu owned Buala including SOPASARE Land. Because Lolu didnot own anything in the land except different peoples from different clans. When we planted things in the land we did not asked Lolu or Paul Kokomona. I was in the bush. When Paul wanted anything for the house such as stick or sago palm or making gardens he alwasy get permission from us. Concerning the stone I do not know may be take just pick it some where in the bush and brought it to Buala. In SOPASARE land Paul did not own any properties.
CROSS EX. BY APPELLANT P. KOKOMANA 
I can say that Lolu did not own the land because you get permission from us before get things from the land. I do not know that our old people know that Lolu owns the land. SIKAPU my uncle disputed the land from Lolu after World War II.
LOT LOHA d.s. and States:
SOPASARE means people who married lived there with wifes and husband. The Hills there called Kupi means 40 girls have not been married. This custom we kept and when we make net for turtle we always put 40 eyes of the net. A man lived at KOLOTONA and turned into stone. His wife asked the husband to go and have awash. He refused as he is a custom person (worshiped devil) One day he followed his wife and went to swim and this he disobeyed his devil and turned into stone. He laid on a placed called PELOI. The name of that person is DODONISIU he is the same clan with POSOMOGO. This before the Church arrived. After the Church in 1902 a person brought the Church (Christianity) at Norcabu he is called SAMU and his wife. They cleaned Magalau and discovered no enough Land so they come to Bau and cleaned a place near the Stream. No body were there at that time. Dara asked Oliva Malona to give him a girl. They went to Nareabu and took a girl called Alice still alive. Fr. Hugo Hebala and his people come on a canoe called Karau. They come to Jack Au and direct to here. The stone comes from the bush somewhere at Happi. They carried the stome from there. That some is to use for the killing of person enemies and when the Church arrived they brought to the Church. I have witnesses to call.
CROSS EX. BY P. KOKOMANA APPEALANT
The concert which we made about Lolu when giving permission to Hebala when first arrived as Priest is only for a play to fill in time.
VENDORS WITNESS 
Court adjourned until 3.45 p.m.
Court Resume and continue with Vendors witnesses 
JOHN LEGUSUGA d.s. and States
I lived here with the old people here for quite a long time. They didnot say anything about Lolu to me. I did not believe that Lolu owns the land of Buala and SOPASARE. I believed the POSOMOGO people owned Buala and SOPASARE. If Lolu owns the land then he must have owned some of the properties in the land. When Hugo Hebala and Noeli first arrived at Maringe they purchased the land from Japhet Maniuto. Segale gave the money to Japhet Maniuto £5.00 and 1,000 teeth dulphine and Tatave give £30.00 to Japhet Maniuta. This custom transaction is to show that they become the relative of Maniuto, bacuase he have no children. If Lolu own the land then these money could be have been given to him but not to Maniuto. When the Station at Buala first established the District Headmen Fredrick Pado called me and Fr. Eric Hugo to sign the agreement with D.C. Tedder. They pointed out to us that we are the landowner. I did not at any time hear that Lolu owns the land. Just last year I heard that Lolu owns the land. I therefore, did not believe that Lolu owns the land. I lived in this land for about 60 years over. The stone Paul mentioned is not brought from SOPASARE. All the devil stones from our old peoples were brought to the Church and SOPASARE stone is burried at the Church house Buala. I did not believe that the stone is brought from SOPASARE to Church was at the Church. The stone at the Church is brought from Happi to Buala Church. The two person brought the stone from Hagulu under the reques of Fr. Hugu Hebala are Leuai and Mathaus. It took them 2 nights before arrive at Buala Church. I myself have seen about this. I did not see any property owned by Lolu in the land. All the old people I am living with are old and died.
CROSS EX BY APPEALANT P. KOKOMANA 
The coconuts and nut trees were planted by our people. The coconuts in Buala Station were owned or planted by Titus Belo Warren Waivoi James Rizu Japhet Maniuto Ben Bopalo Yes just 2 years ago I head the name Lolu I was at Buala for all my life. The coconut shown or performed to show when the Christianity first arrived just to show when the Church first arrived in the Island.
The Court to adjourn until 0800 hours to-morrow 21/3/79.
COURT RESUME THIS MORNING 0800 hours 21/3/79 
All parties attended (present)
Court continue hearing the last witness of the Vendors.
AMOS KUMUDU d.s. and states: The person by named Lolu comes from Hogarano District. She originallly from Hogarano. She is from Sesehu Village. Lolu was chased out from the place because she had sexual intercourse with her brother. Because of this she escaped as they want to kill her. When she left Sesehu she arrived at Kalokopa and settled there. Her relatives who wanted to kill her went after her, and arrived at Kalofapa and want to kill her there but a person a Chief called Vihu stopped them of killing her as she was already in his hand. During that time Vihu told Lolu not to stay at Kalokapa but to live at at Magalau. After living at Magalau I did not know what elese she did there. Lolu's history is known to the people of Kolokapa. A man by named Tepolo knows more history about Lolu Tepalo is from Kolokapa where Lolu first arrived. The Concert performed in respect of Lolu as mentioned in only because she is one of the elder person remain during that time while others died.
CORSS EX. BY APPEALANT P.KOKOMANA 
I am from POSATAVEA tribe and married to Hogarano District I know the history of Lolu. I did not attend the meeting which you refered to as no notification received when you said you talk over the ownership of the land.
VENDERS WITNESSES ENDS
Appealant make application to the Court that he still have two witnesses to call and he said to missed them Yesterday. EDGAR TOTORU Court did not accept the witness as he was sitting in Court during the proceeding Yesterday.
SECOND WITNESS COMONIS KAPURIA d.s. and states
What I know is after the Church arrived in the Island, I believed the land Buala SOPASARE is owned by Lolu. The people of Buala knew of this. What I knew is the history from my grand father. He said that Buala and SOPASARE is owned by Lolu. I heard the story and also have seen when they actioned or concerted about Lolu, when Fr. Hebala first arrived. F. Hebala first bring the Church in the Island landed at Magalau. When he was at Magalau he learned that Magalau have no enough area land to build the church or the to occupy. When at Magalau he asked a man by named Vihu for some land. Vihu told Hebala to see Lolu for Buala land. Fr. Hebala consulted Lolu over the SOPASARE land. Lolu granted permission to Hebala for SOPASARE Land. When he arrived one of Lolu's brother got married and lived here. Lolu's brother planted some coconut trees at Buala area. This I heard from the people after World War II. The persons name is Warren. Warrent told my father that the coconut trees are ours as it was planted by our grand father. I saw my father used to collect nuts from Buala. Because of this I believed the Land is owned by Lolu.
CROSS EX. BY VENDORS 
D. DARA - Lolu's brother is LEAI
I am sure but I heard from Warren that LEAI planted the coconut trees at Buala. I cannot tell whether there is any tambu place in the land. The only thing I know is about a tambu stone at the front of the Church.
A. HAGEMANA - No question 
H. HUGA - No question
A. RIUMANA -
I cannot tell whether the settlers of Buala people make any Custom transaction to Lolu as my grand father did not tell me. I did not know whether anything such as ngali nut, economical trees and coconut trees belongs to Lolu were in the SOPASARE Land. But I know there is a ngali nut tree but already died.
LOT LOHA
I did not know how long Fr. Hebala settled at Magalau before moved to Buala. I did not know where Lolu originated from But What I heard from my grandfather is that Lolu is originated from SOPASARE.
The end of Appealants witnesses.
Appealant P. KOKOMANA. Thats the end of my case and I Have nothing to say.
COURT:	The Judgement for this case is to give out after hearing Mrs Caroline's Appeal. This would be probably to-morrow morning or faternoon. 
Court proceed with the Appeal lodged by Mrs. Caroline Hebala Maetia. Taken spearately from P. KOKOMANA'S appeal.
The Appealant present in Court with husband Mr. Maetia as jointly as appealant refer to an application to Magistrate Central by 16/3/79.
Court accepted and Mr. Maetia husband of the Appealant present in Court as joint appealant.
Mrs. Caroline Hebala Maetia's appeal dated the 5th January 1979 and further points dated 8th February 1979 received in good time.
Court accepted the appeal and proceed with the case. Appeal is read back to the appealant and give an opportunity of any additional points or evidence. She may wish to presented to court. The appealant appealed against the decision over a small portion of Land called BOTI in SOPASARE Land where her people used to or habitually working and their houses were.
MRS. CAROLINE MAETIA d. s. and states
My father is GEORGE HEBALA when first cleared the land to plant the Coconut at BOTI area in SOPASARE Land he make some Custom transaction to TITUS SELO & WARREN WOIWOI by providing foods to these two person. Other Students also assisted my father. Warren is my grandfather. According to Custom this particular Land is given to my father once the Custom transaction is made. George married twice when I said children it means children from the 1st wife and 2nd wife. They are of the POSOMOGO LINE. 1st married he have 4 children and 2nd married 8 children. This appeal based for the all families. My father planted coconuts trees in that particular area and we used these coconuts for copra and food ever since. While I am in school another Custom transaction is made it was a Custom feast to show that the Land and properties in that particular land to remain for the family. If that land sold to Government the all our properties such as coconut trees sago palms and garden will be also gone with the land and we will have no place to get those things. The price of $1,006.90 which agreed by the Vendors to Government is too small which does not cover the value of the land and properties in the land, for a long living. If the Government wish to have the land then, they must find some where to replace our land for we to settle. If the price of $1006.90 still stands we wish the land be retained. The Government to negotiate a place or land for us to settle and work. This is also requested by others. Boti area is the only place where we have our development in it. The 2 houses were still standing there.
(1) Iron roofing house walled with Sago palm leaf and a leaf house built with local material. Iron roofing house and leaf house is worthy of $2,000.00 plus freight & Labour. The place where the 2 buildings were standing we also wish to retain. The retention of the land where the 2 existing building are is to build a Rest House or Hometel. The plan is already drawn up. This is a family project. We didnot appeal against the Acquisition Officer's decision for the whole of SOPASARE land but only a portion of land called BOTI as previously stated. If nothing been done to that place we wish to retain it.
CROSS EX. BY VENDORS 
D. DARA - No question 
A. HAGEMANA - No question 
H. HUGA - No question 
A. RIUMANA - No question 
LOT LOHA - No question
The Court to adjourn until 1.30 p.m. this afternoon 
Court Resume 1.30 p.m. 21/3/79
Appealant wish to call 2 witnesses to prove the Custom transaction of the Land.
Appealant Witnesses (Mrs. Caroline Maetia's Witnesses) 
1. Witness - CLARA KATHEONGA d.s. and States
The Custom transaction done for Boti land I know very well that SAM and BEN made the transaction and they related to my brother GEORGE who is the father of the Appealant. The transaction made in the form of food and money. It was received by TITUS, WARREN AND KOKONIGITA. This Custom transaction is for the BOTI Land and also the coconut trees planted in the land. When GEORGE get old he asked his children to make another Custom transaction before he died for the same area. During that time 2 pigs, food and money were prepared and given to GORGE as well as CALICO'S. The 1st transaction is for the other first people and second transaction is for GEORGE. When he getting old he divided the land with coconut trees in two families because he married to 2 women. I am from NAMIRUFUNEI. My husband comes from POSOMOGO tribe.
CROSS EX.BY VENDORS 
D.DARA - No question
A. HAGEMANA - No question
H. HUGA - No question 
A. RIUMANA - No question 
LOT LOHA - No question
2nd Witness - of Appealant (Mrs. Caroline Maetia) 
DAISY HEBALA - d.s. and States
I am the 2nd wife of GEORGE HEBALA and mother of the Appealant. I know that the 1st Custom transaction made is true
We are the people prepared for this feast. The transaction is for the BOTI LAND which cleared and planted with coconut by GEORGE. The people of Buala and Tirotona do the work for GEORGE. Because of this the 2nd transaction is made. The 1st transaction is given to Warren, Titus and Kokonigita. After this the land is divided into two families. From a tree called GONO to KURASABA stream to another family and from GOBO tree to BOTI STREAM the other family. GEORGE told his children that both families to work together, in the land and sharing properties in the land. 2nd transaction was given to TAVIA and POSOMOGO Clan. This transaction they killed 2 pigs, money calicos and other food.
CROSS EX. BY VENDORS 
D. DARA - No question 
A. HAGEMANA - No question 
H. HUGA - No question 
A. RIUMANA - No question 
L. LOHA - No question
The Appealant Sermons.
I am very concerned with the valuation of the coconut trees, other properties and land in the area whether it cover the $1006.90. No fingures shown in the agreement for coconut or other properties and especially land, gives calculation figure of $1006.90. The Agriculture Department should give evaluation of these properties. The agreement gives fingures but not facts, as well as how many people owns the properties in the area and to whom these money goes to. Each of us have coconuts in the land. There are rules governing investment in the Bank. No one can tell the devaluation in the Bank which against the Law. Coconuts is our peoples investment and therefore the Government should not devaluing our peoples investment, such as coconut. If we destroy coconut we destory our life and investment. The family to whom I am represented they have no any other coconut trees beside this any where around the island. The Government preached for the development and then turn to devaluate the coconut. If the Government feel that the coconut is one of our economy then they should think of some alternative ways. The destroying coconuts is means to take away some body's life. Therefore, fair prices should be compensate for the coconuts. If the decision of this court remains the sane and did not consider the compensation then we wish to further appeal to High Court, for further examination. We didnot object the development planned by which consideration should be given to properties. The building in the land which we asked to retain in the land would still remain even if the Government take further step of composarily acquiring the land. As we already planned to develope the land by building a Rest House or Hometel. The plan for the Rest House is already drawn. Lastly I wish clarification of the $1006.90 be known to Vendors and us as appeallant.
Appeallents case ends. 
VENDORS 
D. DARA - d.s. and states
Before the agreement signed the Acquisition Officers stated to us that the price for the land is different and properties different. The purchase price for the land is about $20 - 25.00 per acres and economcial trees and coconut were different which prices in the Agriculture office. The acquisition Officer told us that the land valued to $1006.00 and prices for the trees and coconut trees are different. Thats why we agreed to sign the agreement.
CROSS EX.BY APPEALANT
The Acquisition Officer stated to us that the price for land itself is $1006.90 based on $25.00 acre and compensation for trees is different. This he said before we sign the agreement. I do not know whether he recorded the minutes of the meeting. No Agriculture Officer present in the meeting. The Agriculture Officer and staff counted the trees and lists of owners.
The acquisition officer authorized the Agriculture staff to assess the properties. The claim passed to the Clerk and I do not know whether it is accepted or not. We didnot agree with the price given. If the Acquisition Officer did not follow the proceedure then further settlement to be made.
A. HAGEMANA - nothing to say but what Dara said is the sane as me.
H. HUGA - Nothing to say but what Dara said is for me also
A. RIUMANA - nothing to say but what Dara said is also for me
L. LOHA - I have nothing to say as similar to what DARA sold.
The Vendors have no witness to call case for Vendors now ends.
JUDGEMENT
The appeal was made in accordance to Section 65(1) of the Land & Titles Act 1969. Both appeals lodged to Court in good tine and court accepted. Both Appealant Mr. Paul Kokomana and Mrs. Caroline Maetia and Mr. Maetia husband who upon application joined by Court as 2nd Appealant with Mrs. CAROLINE MAETIA. Mr. PAUL KOKOMANA appealed against the determination of the Acquisition Officer Mr. Josiah Riogano made on 17/11/78 over the whole of SOPASARE Land for the Extention of Buala Station. Mrs. Caroline Maetia and Mr. John Maetia were claiming a portion of land called BOTI in SOPASARE Land. The Court first decide the appeal of Mr. Paul Kokomana over the whole of SOPASARE LAND against the ACQUISITION OFFICERS DECISION. The whole of SOPASARE LAND is approcimately 16.3 hectres or 40.277 acres. The Land situated in the MARINGE DISTRICT of Santa Ysabel. The Land is adjacent joined to the land where Buala Station situated which can be shown in the Acquisition Officers sketch plan. It was between LR.508, 799 and542, followed the PAPAJA stream in the West and JEJEVO Stream in the East and up in the bush and across to the boundry shown in the sketch Plan. The Appealant P. KOKOMANA appealed against the determination because his name was deleted during the last Public Hearing. He said he did not aware of the Public Meeting to be held because no notice C.L.4 published at Tithiro to where he was living. He also claimed that he is the true land owner. 
The court read over the Appeal points to appealant and also asked the Appealant and give his an opportunity to add anything he wish. The Appealant give his evidence under Oath. And an opportiunity of calling his witnesses. Vendors cross examining the Appealant and witnesses and later vendors gave their evidence on oath and Appealant give an opportunity to cross examing the Vendors. The Court when heard the evidence of both the parties and come to the following findings. Whom the Appealant claimed to be his decendent is Lolu his grand mother. The evidence revealed that Lolu is not a person from SOPASARE. According to custom of the Island to prove a person is the land owner he/she must have some important and economical things in the land as well as some development. The true land owner should be the person to whom the none land owner to get permission from before work in the land or receive some custom transaction from other people using the land. This the Appealant doesnot show any proof of those as well as his witnesses. It appears in the evidence that permission alway granted from the POSOGOMOGO Clan when the Vendors originated from, but not from the NAPIMIRU PENEI to to whom the Appealant claimed to originated from and representing Land owner should know the history of the land and know where the important things are. Such as the devil place, sacrifices place, burriel place and etc. It might be true or not the Appealant Mr. P. KOKOMANA owned the land, unless the Court satisfied the evidence produced. The court noted from the evidence given by the Appealant witnesses supported that the land was given to Fr. Hebala and his people when they first arrived at Maringe but the person offered the land to Hebala and his people were disputed in this issue. The Appealant also failed to clarify to the court the word "GIVEN" is the land granted to HEBALA for occupation only or for ownership. The evidence given by Vendors is that HEBALA purchased the land from a person by named MANIUTA a person from the different clan. It appears to the Court that Vendors knows well the history of the land and important things in the land. Therefore, the court believed and satisfied that the SOPASARE Land is owned by TAVIA and. POSOMOGO CLAN. The court now dealing with the Appeal of Mrs CAROLINE MAETIA and her joined Appelant Mr. JOHN MAETIA. The Appealants appealed against the Acquisition Officers determination made on the 17/11/78 to a portion of land called BOTI in SOPASARE Land of the following points (1) To retain the BOTI LAND with coconut trees and other economical trees in the land. (2) To retain the two existing buildings in BOTI Land (3) Purchase price to small to cover both pieces of land and compensation (4) No notice of the Acquisition officer published in Honiara for other land owners to see. 
The Court went through to the appeal points and heard both evidence from both parties and their witnesses came to the understanding that there was a land called BOTI in SOPASARE Land. The evidence shows that the BOTI LAND is owned by the Appelanats and their peoples through Customary transactions. The Vendors never disputed this. The Court also understand from the evidence given by the Appealants that they have some development in the land. They planted and owned coconut trees, Sago Palms nut trees and 2 buildings in the Land called BOTI. This also never disputed by Vendors. Concerning the Publication of C.L.Form 3 & 4 at Honiara does not neccesarily, since it was published at, Buala Station. Buala Village, Thithiro, Magalau & Naroabu. In the C.L.I. the Agreement signed by Vendors in para. 4(a) the total amount of $1006.90 is written and (b) the covers the full price including all payments for trees or other valuable things growing in the land or fixed to the land". Whether the incorrect or not but - believed to be correct as no evidence to show that the finger is wrong. It appears to the Court that the acquring of SOPASARE Land is not fully acquired as no representative of the OWNER OF BOTI land jointly signed the Agreement. The Court therefore, believed that the BOTI Land in SOPASARE Land is owned by the people to whom the Appealant was a member to and represented.
DECISION 
1. The SOPASARE Land boundries marked in red in the sketch Plan of the Acquisition Officer is owned by the TAVIA & POSOMOGO CLAN to whom the Vendors are represented.
That the BOTI LAND IN SOPASARE LAND i owned by the people to whom the Appealants represented and members to. The boundries demarcated by cutting a boundries and appeared in sketch Plan of the Acquisition Officer. The BOTI LAND to be Ommitted from the Acquisition Officers sketch Plan and to be retained as Customary Land until further acquisition to be made by both parties agreement.

F. PITAKAKA
District Magistrate (C)