'Violation of civil law'!

Officials and people in Chau Hoi commune all confirmed that the disputed land was reclaimed by Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy's father-in-law. Photo: Nhat Lan

The land dispute case in Lam Hoi village, Chau Hoi commune between plaintiff Hoang Thi Thuy and defendant Pham Van Hai was brought to trial by the People's Court of Quy Chau district, with a decision in Judgment No. 04/2018/DS-ST dated April 19, 2018.

Regarding the trial of land disputes in Lam Hoi village, Chau Hoi commune by the People's Court of Quy Chau district, Nghe An electronic newspaper on May 3, 2018 reported in the article: "Has objectivity been ensured when trying land disputes in Chau Hoi commune (Quy Chau)?". Immediately after that, the Provincial People's Procuracy decided to appeal this verdict.

Request to cancel the judgment

On May 17, 2018, the Provincial People's Procuracy issued Decision No. 955/QDKNPT-VKS-DS to appeal against Judgment No. 04/2018/DS-ST of the People's Court of Quy Chau District. Here, the Provincial People's Procuracy affirmed that the Civil Judgment No. 04 of the People's Court of Quy Chau District violated civil law.

Firstly, not establishing people with related rights and obligations to participate in the litigation; secondly, resolving the case without basis; thirdly, violating the settlement of valuation costs; fourthly, violating legal regulations on court fees. Of which, the most noteworthy are the analysis contents of the Provincial People's Procuracy to come to the conclusion that the People's Court of Quy Chau district resolved the case without basis.

According to the analysis of the Provincial People's Procuracy: Plaintiff Hoang Thi Thuy filed a lawsuit requesting the court to resolve two issues: forcing Mr. Pham Van Hai to dismantle the construction on encroached land, including a 3-room house built on encroached land; forcing Mr. Pham Van Hai to return the entire area of ​​encroached land.

Defendant Pham Van Hai admitted that the disputed land area was not under his right to use, and also acknowledged that there was a wooden house built on this land area. Thus, the two contents of the lawsuit of Plaintiff Hoang Thi Thuy are related to each other, determining who has the right to use the land is the basis for accepting or not accepting the Plaintiff's request.

During the trial, the plaintiff Thuy stated that the land was reclaimed by her father-in-law, Mr. Pham Viet Thuan, in 1967. The testimony was consistent with many witnesses.

Meanwhile, defendant Pham Van Hai declared that the land belonged to Mr. Phan Quoc Thien and was being managed by the defendant and his wife. Mr. Phan Quoc Thien stated that the disputed land was reclaimed by him while living in Quy Chau. When the State had a policy to register land use rights, because he had moved to live in Hoang Mai town, defendant Pham Van Hai and his wife directly declared.

However, in the case file there is no document proving that the disputed land plot belongs to Mr. Phan Quoc Thien. The land use right certificate declaration file is in Mr. Phan Quoc Thien's name but is a photocopy, not notarized, authenticated, nor confirmed by the competent authority.

In the verification record dated September 6, 2017 of the People's Court of Quy Chau district at the People's Committee of Chau Hoi commune, it was only confirmed that Mr. Thien was the person who declared the land use rights registration, but did not confirm the origin of the land reclaimed by Mr. Thien. During the process of resolving the case, the court did not request the parties and competent state management agencies to provide management records of the disputed land plots through different periods such as cadastral maps, cadastral books, inventory books, technical records, etc. Therefore, there is no basis to determine who owns the disputed land area.

The disputed land plot in Lam Hoi village is located close to National Highway 48. Photo: Nhat Lan

Because the Civil Judgment at First Instance No. 04 “violated civil law”, and because “these violations could not be remedied by the appellate court”, in Decision No. 955/QDKNPT-VKS-DS, the Provincial People's Procuracy requested the Provincial People's Court to review the appeal judgment and annul the first instance judgment and transfer the case file to the People's Court of Quy Chau district to re-settle according to general procedures.

The origin of the disputed land plot, with the "unanimity" of the parties involved, is due to "land reclamation". Therefore, when conducting an investigation and verification to clarify the land dispute settlement in Lam Hoi village, Chau Hoi commune, what Nghe An Newspaper reporters are interested in learning is to access land documents at the grassroots level; fully grasp the information of responsible officials and households living in the area at the same time.

In the article “Have we ensured objectivity in the adjudication of land disputes in Chau Hoi commune (Quy Chau)?” published on Nghe An Electronic Newspaper on May 3, 2018, we have provided full information about the documents related to the land plot, the opinions of those responsible at the local level, and those who know the case, which are households in Lam Hoi village. All of this information shows that Judgment No. 04 of the People's Court of Quy Chau district has not ensured objectivity.

Mr. Luong De - Chief Justice of the People's Procuracy of Quy Chau district, when asked, told reporters of Nghe An Newspaper: "The court has the right to declare the case, the plaintiff Hoang Thi Thuy has the right to appeal, and the Procuracy has the right to protest...". We understand that the land dispute case in Lam Hoi village, Chau Hoi commune does not stop at the first instance trial of the People's Court of Quy Chau district but will be re-tried at higher courts.

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

But what is worth mentioning here is that the verdict of the People's Court of Quy Chau district has led to the frustration of many officials and people of Chau Hoi commune; some people have reacted quite negatively, affecting security and order in the locality.

I think the Court is a law enforcement agency. Every officer of the Court must uphold the example of “serving the public, abiding by the law, being fair and impartial”. That is, must respect fairness, justice, and impartiality.

With Judgment No. 04 dated April 19, 2018 of the People's Court of Quy Chau district, as pointed out by the Provincial People's Procuracy, "violated civil law", many opinions said that it is necessary to consider the capacity, professional qualifications and conscience of those "holding the scales of justice" in this case.