Has objectivity been ensured when adjudicating land disputes in Chau Hoi commune (Quy Chau)?

Disputed land plot in Lam Hoi village, Chau Hoi commune (Quy Chau). Photo: Nhat Lan

Feelings

At the end of April 2018, Nghe An Newspaper received a petition from Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy (residing in Lam Hoi village, Chau Hoi commune, Quy Chau district) reflecting that the Trial Council of Quy Chau District People's Court made an incorrect judgment in the first instance trial of the land use rights dispute held on April 19, 2018.

Ms. Thuy's family has a land use rights dispute with Mr. Pham Van Hai's family (also residing in Lam Hoi village). This plot of land belongs to Lam Hoi village, adjacent to National Highway 48 and the village road, and the house of a household in the village, Mr. Nguyen Canh Ngo's household.

According to Ms. Thuy, the land was reclaimed by her father-in-law, Mr. Pham Viet Thuan, in 1967. In 1997, Mr. Thuan exchanged a part of the land with Mr. Phan Quoc Thien (resident of Hamlet 1, Chau Hoi Commune) for 2 bags of rice. After exchanging the land, Mr. Thien let his son-in-law, Mr. Phan Van Hai, use it to open a shop.

In 2002, Mr. Hai borrowed more land to open a motorbike repair shop and her father-in-law agreed. All the land exchanges and borrowings were only verbal. Since 2010, Mr. Pham Van Hai has encroached on the land; filled the land to level the ground and built a wooden house on it.

Ms. Thuy said that her family was in a difficult situation. She was born in 1976, originally from Xuan Lam commune, Nam Dan district, and moved to Quy Chau to marry Mr. Pham Viet Thao and live with her husband's family. In 2002, her husband died in an accident. In 2008, Mr. Pham Viet Thuan also passed away. From then on, Ms. Thuy became a widow with no relatives to rely on, and her family situation was extremely difficult. To raise her children, she had to work far away, so she could not manage the family. And this was the "opportunity" for Mr. Pham Van Hai to encroach on the land.

Ms. Thuy also said that during the process of Mr. Hai leveling the land, she had prevented it and the two sides had a scuffle. Ms. Thuy had sent a petition to the Lam Hoi hamlet executive committee and the Chau Hoi commune People's Committee. In 2015 - 2016, the hamlet executive committee and the commune People's Committee organized mediation sessions, but they were unsuccessful. Therefore, Ms. Thuy filed a lawsuit with the Quy Chau District People's Court, requesting Mr. Hai to return the encroached land area.

On April 19, 2018, the People’s Court of Quy Chau district held a trial on the land dispute between Ms. Thuy and Mr. Hai. However, the Trial Panel dismissed Ms. Thuy’s lawsuit and forced her to pay nearly 27 million VND in court fees…

Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy talks with reporters. Photo: NL

What did the jury decide?

The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy, and the defendant, Mr. Pham Van Hai, was brought to the first instance trial by the People's Court of Quy Chau district in Judgment No. 04/2018/DS-ST dated April 19, 2018.

In Verdict No. 04, it is stated that Mr. Pham Van Hai affirmed that the land plot he is using with a sales kiosk and a motorbike repair kiosk is plot number 28, map sheet number 99; originally given to his daughter, Ms. Phan Thi Thao, by his father-in-law - Mr. Phan Quoc Thien in 1991. The land plot on which he built a 3-room house, the remaining part of which has some trees, is plot number 32, map sheet 99, which Mr. Phan Quoc Thien assigned to him and his wife to manage.

From around 1995 - 1996, Mr. Hai started a sales booth; in 2000, he started a motorbike repair booth; and in 2010, he built a house. During the construction of these projects, there was no dispute with Ms. Thuy; during the land use rights declaration, the boundary between his family's land and Ms. Thuy's family's land was a row of trees that still existed... Therefore, Ms. Thuy's request to sue was not accepted.

As a person with related rights and obligations, Mr. Phan Quoc Thien informed: The land plot that Ms. Thuy sued was reclaimed by Mr. Thien during his time working at Quy Chau Forestry (from 1956 to 2004). Since 2004, Mr. Thien moved to live in Mai Hung ward, Hoang Mai town, and he assigned all land assets in Chau Hoi commune to Mr. Pham Van Hai and Ms. Pham Thi Thao for management and use. During the process of using the land plot, Mr. Thien and Ms. Thuy's father-in-law, Mr. Thuan, had no disputes with each other.

Regarding Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy, in addition to the information mentioned above, many former officials and workers of Quy Chau Forestry, currently living in Lam Hoi village, came forward to testify. All of them confirmed the content of Ms. Thuy's statement to the court; affirming that Mr. Pham Viet Thuan was the one who reclaimed the disputed land. At the same time, they said that Mr. Thien's wife used to sell goods at Do Ham market, because she wanted to move closer to home, Mr. Thien asked Mr. Thuan to exchange a part of the land to build a kiosk (the exchange was a verbal agreement, they only heard about it).

Among the witnesses, Mr. Pham Van Tien - Head of Lam Hoi village also confirmed that in 2014, when Mr. Hai was leveling the land, there was a scuffle with Ms. Thuy; Ms. Thuy submitted a petition to the village executive committee. It was not until 2016 - 2017 that Mr. Hai was able to complete the wooden house and level the entire plot of land...

Lam Hoi hamlet executive committee talks about the history of the disputed land plot. Photo: Nhat Lan

In Judgment No. 04, the opinion of the representative of the Procuracy is that the evidence collection process has photocopies without certification, so they have no evidentiary value. The judge violated the time limit for transferring the file and decided to bring the case to trial for the Procuracy at the same level. Request the court to: Accept the lawsuit request of Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy. Force Mr. Pham Van Hai and Ms. Phan Thi Thao to return to Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy 1,243.4 m²Land plot number 32, map sheet 99; and demolish the 3-room house and other structures built on the land.

Meanwhile, the opinion of the defense for Mr. Pham Van Hai is that in 2014, when the State had a policy to register and declare land use rights, Mr. Thien authorized Mr. Hai to register; in the land use rights registration file and technical file, Mr. Phan Quoc Thien's land plot has number 32, map sheet 99. Meanwhile, Ms. Thuy did not make a declaration. This is the basis for the disputed land plot belonging to Mr. Phan Quoc Thien's right to use. The Trial Council is requested to dismiss Ms. Thuy's lawsuit request.

According to the Trial Council, the basis for field verification of the disputed land plot is that there are structures and trees of Mr. Pham Van Hai on the land; the land use rights registration file and the technical file of the land plot were verified at the People's Committee of Chau Hoi commune; Ms. Thuy did not make a declaration during the process of the State's policy of declaring and registering land use rights, so it was determined that "Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy's lawsuit against Mr. Pham Van Hai to return the land under the management and use of Mr. Phan Quoc Thien is groundless". The Trial Council dismissed Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy's lawsuit, forcing her to pay 26.8 million VND in court fees.

Is it objective?

In Quy Chau district, many people were skeptical and dissatisfied with the verdict of the Trial Council in the above trial. They said that this verdict had led to many people in Chau Hoi commune having negative reactions after the trial.

In Chau Hoi commune, from the Lam Hoi village executive committee to the Chau Hoi commune People's Committee officials, all affirmed that the Trial Council was not objective. Mr. Hoang The Dieu, Pham Van Tien - Party cell secretary and head of Lam Hoi village and many local people affirmed that to resolve the dispute, it is necessary to understand the history of the village and the history of the land plot in order to make an objective judgment.

As Mr. Hoang The Dieu said: “The people of Lam Hoi village are all cadres and workers of the forestry farm. Having lived and worked together for decades, almost everyone knows the situation. Nearly 100% of the family confirmed that Ms. Thuy’s father-in-law was the one who reclaimed the land, not as Mr. Thien told the court. However, the court’s people came to verify and did not grasp the information from the Executive Committee and the people…”.

Chairman of Chau Hoi Commune People's Committee, Mr. Lang Anh Ty, said that the verdict of the Trial Council was not close to reality. Photo: Nhat Lan

Reviewing the land use rights registration file currently kept at the Chau Hoi Commune People's Committee, the file of land plot No. 32 under Mr. Phan Quoc Thien's name is completely invalid. All the officials here, when asked, disagreed with the verdict of the Trial Council; they even affirmed that even the file of land plot No. 28 that Mr. Pham Van Hai is using (currently kept at the commune) declared that the origin was reclaimed by Mr. Phan Quoc Thien is also incorrect; in 2016, the Chau Hoi Commune People's Committee suspended the leveling of Mr. Pham Van Hai's land... Mr. Lang Anh Ty - Chairman of the Chau Hoi Commune People's Committee added that during the verification process, the court did not organize a working session with the commune government to fully grasp the information!

According to Mr. Luong De - Director of Quy Chau District Procuracy, from studying related documents and the history of the land plot, at the trial on April 19, 2018, the representative of the Procuracy requested the court to declare that Mr. Pham Van Hai must return 1,243.4 m2 to Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy.² plot number 32.

According to Mr. Luong De, the court has the right to pronounce judgment, citizen Hoang Thi Thuy has the right to appeal, and the Procuracy has the right to protest. “We are very sad to see people reacting negatively to the decision of the Trial Council. The Procuracy will consider the protest after the court has a verdict…”, Mr. Luong De said.