Complaint for land claim in Truong Thi (Vinh City): Not enough basis for consideration
(Baonghean) - Nghe An Newspaper received a complaint from Ms. Ho Thi Ty through her authorized person, Mr. Vo Quy Hoang, residing in Block 4, Truong Thi Ward, Vinh City. The main content of the complaint is to demand 364m2Land currently used by Ho Goong Tourism Joint Stock Company.
The complainant's argument
According to the application, in 1971, the People's Committee of Hung Dung commune assigned Mrs. Ho Thi Ty's family to use the land plot they are currently living on in block 4, Truong Thi ward (along Phan Dang Luu street). According to map sheet 1, map 299, the land plot has plot number 174, area 936m22But now, that plot of land has been divided into 3. Including plot number 8, area 572m22; a part of the road area to Ho Goong Tourism Joint Stock Company; and land plot number 44, area 178.7m2The Department of Natural Resources and Environment has just issued a land use rights certificate to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company.
 |
| The road surface of Phan Dang Luu street belongs to plot number 8 of Mrs. Ho Thi Ty's family (beer shop). Photo: Nhat Lan |
Regarding the reason, in 1985, the Provincial People's Committee allowed the Trade Union to use a part of the land area adjacent to Goong Lake, behind plot 174 to build a guest house (now Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company). At that time, because there was no entrance to transport materials, the guest house leader, Mr. Nguyen Huu Khiem, borrowed a part of plot 174 to build a road.
Because she trusted Mr. Khiem, and was supported by the guesthouse in using electricity and water, Mrs. Ho Thi Ty's husband, Mr. Tran Van Huynh, agreed to lend her the land; this lending was not made in writing, but there was an agreement that the guesthouse would pay land tax. Because the guesthouse lent the road, plot 174 became two plots (number 8 and number 44 as present) separated by the road.
Regarding the land use process, the petition stated that in 1990, the Provincial People's Committee issued Decision 2270 on the recovery of 850m2Mr. Tran Van Huynh's land because Mr. Huynh's residential land is in the planning area for expanding Nguyen Tat Thanh Park.
When Decision 2270 was issued, Mr. Huynh's family and the guesthouse were still in agreement that the guesthouse would use the road, but when compensation was paid, the family would enjoy it, so the family did not ask for it back. On the other hand, during the period of 2005 - 2007, Mr. Huynh and some neighboring households repeatedly complained that if the province had not yet recovered the land and compensated for resettlement to implement the park expansion project, they would issue land use right certificates to the people. The city government had considered this request, however, due to the project, it had not been implemented...
Currently, Ms. Ho Thi Ty's family is complaining because, on April 24, 2015, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment issued land use right certificate No. BY969835 to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company so that they can own land plot No. 44. This action has affected the family's rights...
The information in the petition also stated that, in response to the complaint of Mrs. Ty's family, the Provincial People's Committee assigned the Department of Natural Resources and Environment to preside over and coordinate with relevant departments, branches, and Vinh City authorities to resolve the matter. However, the resolution (shown in Official Dispatch No. 4564 dated August 24, 2016 of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment) did not ensure the truth and was contrary to the provisions of the law. Therefore, her family continued to file a complaint, requesting the competent authority to cancel the decision to lease land plot No. 44 to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company; revoke the land use right certificate for plot 44 that the Department of Natural Resources and Environment had granted to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company; force Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company to return the 364m2 of borrowed land...
Insufficient basis for consideration
In the "documents proving the land plot" presented by the complainant, there are 2 documents considered important, including map sheet 1 (map 299) showing land plot 174 with an area of 936m22; and Decision to withdraw 850m2Land No. 2270/QD-UB dated December 6, 1990 of the Provincial People's Committee for Mr. Tran Van Huynh's family.
 |
| The road to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company and land plot number 44 (kiosk row) where Ms. Ho Thi Ty's family filed a land claim. Photo: Nhat Lan |
Through studying map sheet 1, we see that the argument of Mrs. Ho Thi Ty's family that land plot 147 previously consisted of 3 plots (plot number 8, plot number 44 and the road to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company) has unreasonable points. For the following reasons: Land plot number 8 has a width of 16m on Phan Dang Luu Street; land plot number 44 has a width of 7.6m on Phan Dang Luu Street; and the road to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company connecting to Phan Dang Luu Street has a width of 8m. If added together, the width of Phan Dang Luu Street of all 3 plots will be 31.6m. Land plot 174 on map 299 is shown as a rectangle, with a length (attaching Phan Dang Luu Street running all the way to the edge of Goong Lake) nearly 2 times larger than its width (attaching Phan Dang Luu Street). If the width is 31.6m, as we calculated above, then plot number 174 has an area of approximately 2,000m2However, the map shows the area of this plot of land is only 939m2.2.
Regarding Decision No. 2270/QD-UB dated December 6, 1990 of the Provincial People's Committee, the content is correct to recover 850m2 of land from Mr. Tran Van Huynh's family. However, this decision clearly stated the boundaries of the land plot, as follows: North borders Goong Lake; South borders Phan Dang Luu Street; West borders Mr. Dau Tan; and East borders the road to Cong Doan tourism!
Decision 2270 of the Provincial People's Committee was issued in 1990, at that time map 299 was the most important document in land management, as a basis for implementation. On map sheet 1 of map 299, there was a road to the Union guesthouse (now Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company). Thus, although Ms. Ho Thi Ty's family considered Decision 2270 as one of the bases to verify their land rights, the content in it showed that her land boundary only reached the road to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company; thereby showing that the claim for land to the road to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company and land plot No. 44 was unfounded.
In addition, after investigation, on June 29, 2016, the Provincial People's Committee issued Official Letter No. 854/UBND.BTD assigning the Department of Natural Resources and Environment to preside over and coordinate with the Vinh City People's Committee and relevant agencies to inspect and advise on resolving the petition on land of Ms. Ho Thi Ty's family (petitioned by Mr. Tran Thai Hong). On August 24, 2016, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment issued Official Letter No. 4564 to the Provincial People's Committee regarding the verification results, in which it was determined that: The contents of Mr. Tran Thai Hong's reflection have no basis for resolution.
Reasons: Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company affirmed that it did not borrow land from Mr. Tran Ngoc Huynh's family; Mr. Tran Thai Hong did not have documents proving that in 1985 his family lent 364m2 to Mr. Nguyen Huu Kiem - Director of Trade Union Tourism.2belonging to plot number 174, map sheet 299/TTg; The area of the reclaimed land has not been used by Mr. Tran Thai Hong's family for 33 years (from 1985 to present); a part of this area is used for traffic purposes (managed by the People's Committee of Truong Thi Ward) and a part by Ho Goong Tourism Joint Stock Company (has been granted the above certificate); The reclaimed land area belongs to the land that the People's Committee of Nghe Tinh province has allowed the Management Board of the Trade Union Tourist Resort to use to build a road to the Trade Union Tourist Resort in Decision No. 600 QD/UB dated July 24, 1987...
Through the above information, it is clear that Ms. Ho Thi Ty's family filed a complaint demanding that Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company return 364m2The borrowed land has no basis for consideration and resolution. From here, it is affirmed that the proposal to the Provincial People's Committee to revoke the land use right certificate for plot 44 that the Department of Natural Resources and Environment granted to Goong Lake Tourism Joint Stock Company is also baseless.
Finally, through research, it was found that Mrs. Ho Thi Ty's family once owned 936m2land; in 1990, the competent authority issued a decision to reclaim 850.2m2Her family's land. Due to the unfinished Nguyen Tat Thanh Park expansion project, over time, Mrs. Ty's family's land has shrunk to only 572m2.2. The narrowing of land area is real (partly due to the expansion of Phan Dang Luu Street. On map 299, the width of Phan Dang Luu Street is much smaller than the length of plot 174; now it is 35m wide including the corridor; while the length of plot 8 where Mrs. Ho Thi Ty's family currently lives is over 32m). This shows that Mrs. Ho Thi Ty's family has suffered damage to their land rights, while there are up to 5 households living together on one plot of land. Therefore, Mrs. Ho Thi Ty's family should petition the competent authority to inspect and consider instead of filing a complaint to claim land when there is not enough valid basis...
Nhat Lan
