Posted: September 1st, 2022

Securing Legal Ownership of land

Securing Legal Ownership of land
In 2005, Alice purchased the registered freehold of Penfold, a piece of derelict land with a dilapidated cottage. Six months later, Alice had draft plans drawn up to develop the property into private luxury residential apartments.
In 2007, John the owner of a neighbouring property that backs onto Penfold discussed with his sister, Sandra, that since his fence had blown down, he would use part of Penfold as it was “a waste and not currently being used”. John was aware of Alice’s development plans. Later that year, John occasionally began removing the overgrowth of Penfold that backed onto his garden.
In 2008, John increased his activities by spreading lawn seed and planting around the borders.
In 2009, John finally decided to have his fence replaced. He instructed the contractor to position the fence to include the area of Penfold he had been cultivating and to safeguard his dog who often wandered further into Penfold. The only access to the cultivated area of Penfold, which John has now included in his garden, is via John’s locked garden gate.
Alice ignored what John was doing to the land and continued working on the development plans.
Three weeks ago, Alice sold the land to Northcote Properties, a property investment company that intends to proceed with the development as soon as possible. Northcote Properties has written to John, asserting its legal ownership to Penfold and insisting that he remove the fence.
Advise John as to any claim he may have against Northcote Properties’ registered title to the land and the necessary procedure to follow if John were to try to secure legal ownership.
Securing Legal Ownership of land
Individuals named on the title register to a property throu7gh purchasing or mortgaging have different property rights to the property, and thus they can raise different enforceable claims to the property when their rights are infringed. In this case, John is the owner of a property neighboring Alice registered freehold Penfold. Alice plans to develop the property into private luxury residential apartments. John argues that since his fence had blown down, he would use part of the Penfold as it was. John had clear information on the intention of Alice’s development plans. John regularly removed the overgrown Penfold that backed on his garden. Consequently, John increased his activities and operations by spreading lawn seed and planting around the borders. Later, John erected a fence by positioning it to include the Penfold area that he had been cultivating to safeguard his dog from wandering in the Penfold, which was the only access to the cultivated area of the Penfold, thus making it part of the garden. Alice ignored the John operations and continued working on the garden. Later, Alice sold her property to Northcote Properties, who wrote a letter to John claiming the property’s legal ownership and thus ordering him to remove the fence. John needs to make his claim against Northcote Properties to secure his legal ownership through the appropriate procedure.
John’s claim on the land
John is named on the title register to the property; thus, he had different rights over the land; thus, he can make claims in the case; thus, such rights are violated or infringed by any party. In this regard, John can launch the claim based on his right to the land’s possession (Mackey, 2016). The term means that John was the current holder of the land, and thus he could temporarily or permanently hold the land. The term right of possession means that the person occupying the property and uses it for the right purpose has the right to that property (Lemaitre, 2011). In this case, John has the right to possess the land where he had erected a fence and that the new tenant to the land found him using the land. Therefore, Northcote properties have no right to order John to remove his fence.
John can raise the claim on the right to control the land as a registered owner (Pasqualucci, 2009). The registered owner of the land has the right to control the use of the land, but they must adhere to covenants and restrictions by the homeowner association or the subdivision rules and regulations. Additionally, the landowner can adhere to different laws, rules, and regulations under the constitution (Pentassuglia, 2011). In this regard, John’s fence on the Penfold was his exercise of control of the land, and he was doing so to serve his land’s needs. Therefore, John can make claims founded on his right to control the land as a registered owner.
John can claim based on his rights to derive income from the land (Gilbert, 2016). The landowner has a right to use the land to generate income and revenues within the legal means. The owner of the land can rent or do business from the land to generate revenues. In this regard, John erected a fence to ensure that he can use his land productively without interfering with his neighbors’ properties (Zhu and Simarmata, 2015). John’s fencing exercise ensured that he could be able to concentrate on his land and use it productively as a garden to generate income. Therefore, Northcote properties do not have a right to order John to remove his fence as the action would compromise his intention to generate income from his land.
John can raise claim based on the right to exclusion to external parties from matters of his land. External parties to the land can be excluded from trespassing or interfering with the land to protect the land’s registered owner (Zevenbergen et al., 2013). This right’s enjoyment has an exception since law enforcement officers can access the land with a warrant. Additionally, the utility organizations are granted easements on properties to maintain the rights of way and utility equipment. In this regard, Northcote Properties needs to be excluded from interfering with the fence or the operations within John’s land (Watson, 2010). The exclusion of Northcote properties from John’s land protects John and ensures that the fence is not interfered with, thus marking the two parties’ boundary.
Additionally, John needs to raise a claim based on his right to use and quiet enjoyment of the land (Wickeri and Kalhan, 2010). The right to quiet enjoyment ensures that one is able to use their property undisturbed for external parties. As a tenant of the government, John needs to be guaranteed that he will use his land and enjoy it quietly. The exercise of the right to use and quiet enjoyment of land ensures that Northcote properties are prohibited from interfering with John’s land or fence.
The procedure of claiming land rights
John needs to adopt the due process in claiming the rights to his land against the Northcote Properties. John needs to stay civil and avoid disagreements with the Northcote Properties. In this regard, John needs to hire a surveyor to ensure that he can establish the property boundaries that he claims (Ravna, 2011). Consequently, John needs to evaluate the community laws, the constitution to establish that his rights are infringed by the Northcote, demanding that he remove the fence marking the boundary of his land. Furthermore, John needs to contact an attorney on the legal disputes with facts and evidence from the land surveyor and the rights violated under the constitution. The attorney needs to reply to Northcote Properties’ letter on making arguments on the legitimacy of the fence’s position and the violations of John’s rights regarding his property.
Additionally, the letter needs to ask for specific actions to resolve the land dispute. Finally, John needs to file the case as a last resort when a solution is not found to solve the dispute. There are different avenues for solving land disputes, such as mediation or out-of-court settlements, but if they fail, one needs to file a lawsuit to get an interpretation from a court of law. This approach ensures that the dispute is solved through legal decisions.
Conclusion
John has different legal rights occasioned by him being a registered owner of the land; thus, he needs to raise claims on the violation of different rights. The fact that Northcote Properties orders him to remove a fence on his property amounts to the violation of different rights that need to be addressed. Through legal means or out of court settlements.

References
Gilbert, J. (2016). Indigenous peoples’ land rights under international law: from victims to actors. Brill Nijhoff.
Lemaitre, S. (2011). Indigenous peoples’ land rights and REDD: a case study. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 20(2), 150-162.
Mackey, E. (2016). Unsettled expectations. Uncertainty, land and settler decolonization.
Pasqualucci, J. M. (2009). International Indigenous Land Rights: A Critique of the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Light of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Wis. Int’l LJ, 27, 51.
Pentassuglia, G. (2011). Towards a jurisprudential articulation of indigenous land rights. European Journal of International Law, 22(1), 165-202.
Ravna, Ø. (2011). The Process of Identifying Land Rights in parts of Northern Norway: Does the Finnmark Act Prescribe an Adequate Procedure within the National Law?. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online, 3(1), 423-453.
Watson, B. A. (2010). The impact of the American Doctrine of Discovery on native land rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Seattle UL Rev., 34, 507.
Wickeri, E., & Kalhan, A. (2010). Land rights issues in international human rights law. Malaysian journal on Human rights, 4(10).
Zevenbergen, J., Augustinus, C., Antonio, D., & Bennett, R. (2013). Pro-poor land administration: Principles for recording the land rights of the underrepresented. Land use policy, 31, 595-604.
Zhu, J., & Simarmata, H. A. (2015). Formal land rights versus informal land rights: Governance for sustainable urbanization in the Jakarta metropolitan region, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 43, 63-73.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Securing Legal Ownership of land