(PLO)- The protest that “the first-instance judgment will cause irritation and create bad public opinion in the society …” is very valid and we both expect the court and the People’s Procuracy of Ca Mau province to have another decision that is more suitable for the common sense.
“The argument of the first-instance judgment will cause irritation and create bad public opinion in society because it only takes a long time to occupy the land and has merit in managing and embellishing the land, and will automatically have the right to use the land.” What is happening from the reason of such a strange-sounding protest of the People’s Procuracy of U Minh district, Ca Mau against a first instance judgment in April 2023 of this district’s People’s Court handling the case of reclaiming the encroached land?
According to the appealed judgment, the plaintiff sued for the defendant to return more than 4,600 m . to him2 land in Khanh Hoi commune, U Minh district, Ca Mau. This is the part of the claimant’s land named in the land register in 1994 and was granted a land use right certificate by the government in 1995. However, in 1997, using the excuse that the land was reclaimed by his grandparents. , the defendant came to recapture and manage, use so far.
|The disputed land is worth more than 7 billion VND. Photo: CTV|
Verification results of the district court showed that many of the plaintiff’s statements were correct. The disputed land area is derived from the land of the defendant’s grandfather-in-law, which has been exploited since the French colonial period. In 1964, when the State dug a zoning canal, the land belonging to forestry land was managed by the State. In 1969, the plaintiff’s parents went into rice farming and farming by themselves. Then, due to war, the plaintiff’s family left. In 1973, they returned to farming, the plaintiff was granted a certificate and then the defendant occupied the land as mentioned above.
Also according to this judgment, the plaintiff had a long time to reclaim the land but was not returned. Then, because it was discovered that the granting of a certificate to the plaintiff had a technical error, not the wrong object, the authorities revoked the certificate…
Notably, the trial panel determined that the plaintiff was the person entitled to use the disputed land parcel because of stable and long-term use, had declared, registered, and paid taxes to the State. However, the trial panel said that both parties had time to manage and use the land, each party had equal efforts, so it was divided into two. The first instance court ruled for the defendant to continue to manage and use the disputed land and returned half of the land value to the plaintiff (more than VND 3.8 billion).
Disagreeing with this ruling, the district procuracies have argued at the beginning of the article to protest to amend the first-instance judgment in the direction of accepting the entire claim of the plaintiff.
Assuming that the trial is in accordance with the procedural law (ie the case has the guarantee of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff’s right to sue, etc.), the important thing to discuss here is the content of the trial.
First, it should be seen that the defendant’s land use (in fact, land acquisition) from 1997 to now is against the law and against social morality. Because that land is under the lawful use right of the plaintiff through the fact that the plaintiff has up to 26 years of stable land use and has been granted a certificate. If he thinks he is the old owner and wants to use the land again, the respondent must rely on the competent authorities to arbitrate this matter according to the provisions of the law, but is not allowed to act differently.
It should be further noted that according to the previous Land Laws, the State does not recognize the reclaiming of land that has been assigned to others for use during the implementation of the State’s land policy. From this principle, there have been many documents of the Supreme People’s Court guiding: In case the old landowner does not declare, does not register his name in the land register or cadastral book, does not exercise the right to manage and use the land owner. using land; and the current land user has declared and registered his/her name in the land register or cadastral book; If a competent state agency has carried out procedures for granting a certificate of land use right with a legal basis and strictly complied with the Land Law, the former land owner cannot claim that land use right back.
With such clear instructions, it is impossible not to question the court of first instance: When it is very likely that the respondent cannot claim the land according to the provisions stated above, why is it so easy for the court to let the respondent continue? continue to use the land as if openly abetting land encroachment?
Asking this to see the protest argument “the first-instance judgment will cause irritation and create bad public opinion in society…” of the People’s Procuracy of U Minh district is very valid and we are looking forward to the court, the People’s Procuracy of Ca Mau province to have a decision. more suitable for life.
Lawyer NGUYEN THI THU TAM, Bar Association of Ho Chi Minh City