"Yateley Common was correctly registered in 1965, so all rights once suspended i.e horse riding and access for air and exercise was returned on de requisition day in 1960. "

Says Tony Barnett

I have been asked to explain the meaning of Waste lands of a manor not subject to rights of common.

This phrase is not defined in the 1965 CRA, the commons commissioners and courts have relied on the judicial definition given in case history, re Watson B in AG v  Hanmer (1858) 2LJ Ch 837.....the true meaning of "wastes" or "waste lands" or "waste grounds" of the Manor is the open, uncultivated and unoccupied lands of the Manor(where you live) or open lands parcel of the Manor, other than the Demesne lands of the Manor.

Information given by the clerk to Hampshire County Council, to the secretary of states envoys was that the Whole of Yateley Common was neither occupied or cultivated, but for fraudulent purposes the fact that the common land was so occupied by unlawful occupants was not disclosed, the HCC therefore shot itself in the foot and are liable to prosecution for false representation.

In, In re Britford Common (1977)1WLR 39 this approach was confirmed, and the judge explained that the land is parcel of a manor if it is physically  within a manor and also owned by the Lord of the manor, this latter point was subject of litigation as well, in two high court cases (in re Yateley Common, Hampshire (1977)1WLR 840 and in re Chewtown common(1977) 1WLR 1242) it was held that so long as waste land had at some time in the past been waste lands of a manor, it need not at the date of registration still be owned by the Lord of a manor to fall within section 22 (as above AG v Hanmer), 

Both cases were overruled by the court of appeal in re Box Hill Common (1979)2 WLR 177, which held that waste land must be of a manor at the` date of registration to qualify for registration, the court did not state precisely the meaning of the phrase of a manor, but it was considered by Mr commissioner Baden Fuller in his decision in the matter of Cripplestyle, Cranbourne common, and King Barrow Hill, Aldershot, Wimborne Dorset (210/D/419-27, 464, 465; dated 24th November 1980) the relevant part of his decision was as follows;.....the judgement of the court of appeal in re Box Hill was expressed to be on the basis that the land there under consideration had long ceased to be in any way connected with a manor...

The judgement also dealt in some detail with the` ownership but I cannot conclude that the` court thought that being in the` same ownership either for a legal e`state in fee simple or beneficially is the same thing as being "connected", or that a manor ceases to be in some way connected because the legal estate or the beneficial interests are severed.

As has been disclosed the same Commons Commissioner overruled the objectors in 1974, Yateley Common was correctly registered in 1965, so all rights once suspended i.e horse riding and access for air and exercise was returned on de requisition day in 1960.