The purpose of enacting The Land Registration Act 2002, was to combat the uncertainties evolved around the previous Act, Land Registration Act 1925 . The need for reforms was highlighted in a report by Law Commission known as Land Registration for the 21st Century: a Conveyancing Revolution . LRA 2002 repealed LRA 1925, not only simplify the law by maintaining an accurate record of all the rights and alongside interests held by others that affect the land, but also to give certainty the basic concepts engrossed by the 1925 Act as it can be very clearly evident that 2002 Act revolves around the original and principle ideas with amendments. One of the special concepts in land law is of overriding interests. The standard practice in the English land law is all the interest and rights affecting or is binding over particular a land should be registered in the Register. However, the concept of overriding interest denotes that there are interests which are binding on the owner (the registered proprietor) regardless of not being formally registered. It was introduced because in that era it was though that it would be unreasonable and unjust to overlook such rights and interest enjoyed. Overriding interests need not be registration to bind the legal owner of the land. Therefore, if the land is sold to another person the interests and rights would not be lost. It can be said that overriding by nature are unregistered if they are registered they will cease to be an overriding interest. Law Commission accepted that there are compelling reasons due to which the concept of overriding interest cannot be abolished altogether. And denying of overriding status will contradict paramount policies. However, LRA 2002 has affected it in a number ... ... middle of paper ... ...san Francis Gray, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2009 4. MODERN STUDIES IN PROPERTY LAW, Vol. 6, Susan Bright, ed., Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011. 5. Introduction to Land Law, Roger J. Smith, Longman, 2007 – Case Laws: 1. PYE (OXFORD) LTD V GRAHAM 2000 UKHL 30 2. WILLIAMS & GLYN’S BANK V BOLAND 1981 AC 487. 3. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL BANK LTD V AINSWORTH 1965 AC 1175 4. LLOYDS BANK V ROSSET 1989 1 AC 107, 5. CHHOKAR V CHHOKAR (1894) 6. HYPO MORTAGES SERVICE V ROBINSON 1997 2 FLR 71 7. BIRD V SYNE-THOMSON 1979 1 WLR 440 8. WLLIAMS & GLYN’s BANK V BOLAND 1981, 9. ABBEY NATIONAL BUILDING SOCIETY V CANN 1991 1All ER 1985, 10. MALORY V CHESHIRE HOMES (2002) 3 WLR 1, 11. FERRISHURST LTD V WALLCITE LTD 1999, CH 355 12. THOMPSON V FOY 2009 13. LINK LENDING V BUSTARD 2010. Statues: 1. Land Registration Act 1925 2. Land Registration Act 2002
The Land Reform Act of 1967 permitted the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landlords (the lessors) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (the lessees). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private land owners. That meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the State and Federal Govermnet.The contested statute gave lessees of single family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property that they leased, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the land owners) claimed that such a condemnation was not a taking for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was promptly turned over to the lessee (a private ...
Moreover the class of the original covenantees can be extended to people who were not in the original deed under s.56(1) Law Of Property Act 19252. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 enables the benefit of a contract to be given to those who are not parties to it.3
...o the purchaser of unregistered land should the disposition be ultra vires, assuming that there is no actual notice of such then overreaching can take place. This has now evolved into their being no requirement for absence of notice. In addition Section 70 (1) (g) of the LRA 1925 protected as an overriding interest the property rights of those in actual occupation of the land as described by Lord Denning MR:
Does the introduction of a system of registration of title remove the need for the law to recognise possessory or equitable interests in land? Why? Why not?
As Vance Hughston writes “the major problem with the system for resolving native title claims is not hard to identify. It is the significant time and resources needed to resolve those native title claims which are opposed by government and other respondents” (Calma, 2009). Therefore, it is evident that the Native Title procedure needs some reforms to counteract the unjust requirements set out in section 223 of the Native Title Act 1933 (Cth). Within this section, it clearly expresses the marginal requirements imposed on the Native Title claimants – particularly subsection C. This subsection outlines the ongoing relationship that a native title claimant would have to sustain in order to be eligible for a possible trial. However, it poses many problematic and difficult situations towards the claimant, as they have to prove a continuous relationship with the land since sovereignty. In addition, section 237 of the Native Title Act states that the land mustn’t be partially or wholly extinguished by Government actions. If wholly extinguished, i.e. when claimants want areas such as “privately owned freehold land, pastoral or agricultural leases, residential, commercial, community purposes and in areas where governments have built roads, airports, railways, schools and other public works”, the
The distribution of Government lands had been an issue since the Revolutionary War. Early methods for allocating unsettled land outside the original 13 colonies were chaotic. Boundaries were established by stepping off plots from geographical landmarks. As a result, overlapping claims and border disputes were common. The Land Ordinance of 1785 finally implemented a standardized system of Federal land surveys that eased boundary conflicts. Territories were divided into a 6-mile square called a township prior to settlement. The township was divided into 36 sections, each measuring 1 square mile or 640 acres each. Sale of public land was viewed as a means to generate revenue for the Government rather than as a way to encourage settlement. Initially, an individual was required to purchase a full section of land at the cost of $1 per acre for 640 acres. The investment needed to purchase these large plots and the massive amount of physical labor required to clear the land for agriculture were often insurmountable obstacles.
Reece H., ‘The paramountcy principle Consensus or construct?’ [1996] 49 Current Legal Problems p. 267-304
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
Perhaps the biggest failure in the reservation system affecting current times is in the status of laws and jurisdiction. Communal land ownership and federal trust restrictions on land ownership and use inhibit economic development and many land allotments are owned collectively by groups of individuals. Multiple ownership makes it difficult to manage the lands and it reduces benefits to individuals. It is also nearly impossible to use the land as collateral for obtaining loans because of federal protection from encumbrances on trust
In order to address the existing complexities in respect to the acquiescence of co-ownership beneficial interests in land, it is important to identify their differences. A co-ownership beneficial in an interest of land can be established thro...
Achieving the Main Aims of the Land Registration Acts A system of land registration has been in existence for well over one hundred years. The LRA[1] 1862 and the LTA[2]s 1875 and 1897 provided a system for voluntary registration of title. The LRA 1862 was found to be unworkable and thus replaced by the LTA 1875 and then 1897. The LTA 1897 made registration of title compulsory on dealings with land in the county of London, prior to this the number of titles registered was very small. However, it was not until 1st December 1990 that the compulsory areas were extended to the whole of England and Wales[3].
Clearly the overriding interests undermine from the mirror principle, overriding interests can be said to be the crack in the mirror. The register will only mirror the interests which are protected by registration and not the overriding interests which do not need to be on the register however now all interests will start to be electronically transmitted ensuring that rights will be created and registered electronically hence rights which have not been created electronically will not occur. Resulting in the register actually mirroring reality however there will always be certain some overriding interests which are necessary to protect the occupier’s interest.
of user in Land Law are still good law. Custom law can still be used
On the one hand, participatory approach to land use planning can provide openings for the decentralized administration of land management and enhance legal protection of local land rights through contributing to formal recognition of existing land tenure systems. According to Chigbu et al, (2015) four functions of land use planning that directly links to tenure security. (1) Its capacity to identify or determine land areas, parcels and uses and users. (2) Its propensity to enable documentation of land areas, parcels, rights, restrictions and responsibilities. (3) The opportunities it provides for stakeholder involvement, compensation of claims and community participation. (4) Its impact on land value, land markets and credit opportunities. On the other hand, land use planning, promoting sustainable natural resource use and environmental management are generally part of the mandate of local governments. And these prerogatives often tend to be weakly developed, both legally and with respect to capacity building and methodology (Hilhorst 2010). Unclear property rights and tenure insecurity are the major constraints to the potential of successful land use planning. According to UN-Habitat (2008, p. 17), poor land use planning associated with insecurity of tenure and incompletely specified land rights leads to problems of air and water-borne pollution from agricultural and industrial land use. Though there is a
In order to secure land tenure for the urban informal settlers, different countries have introduced licenses or Certificates in different names. However they all have the same objectives. For instance, in Zambia residents are issued with a 30-year Occupancy Licences while the area undergoes through the process of upgrading. These can be later replaced by certificates of title, which carry the same effect as if the landowner were obtaining a direct lease of the land from the state (UN-Habitat, 2012). In Botswana, Certificate of Use is issued to informal dwellers so as to encourage them on further housing investment (Durand-Lasserve, 2006). In Brazil, Concession of the Real Right to Use is issued to residents. The validity period of these licences varies between 30 and 50 year periods but subject to renew (Van der Molen, 2002).