Bluechester City Council - Case Study Example

Bluchester Council Vs Doncaster Doncaster Wagons Ltd Prepared by Submitted to Word count Introduction The topic of the advice is the occupancy and position of the land. The 1925 land act states that the members of public can exercise their right of their use of metropolitan common land. The land or free state mentioned in the case is not metropolitan common land and the free exercise of the right of use shall be restricted. The Doncaster Wagons cannot use the land on their own decision without permission of the owners, Bluechester city council. The use of the land will be restricted by public when the government allots it to a lord, manor, individual or to an organisation. Trespassing into the land can be restricted and the judge will have the right to punish him on the complaint. If any building or a fence is erected or any construction is done, it cannot be lawful without the consent of the minister. They will order inquiries as are directed by the commons act 1876. The county courts are entitled to convict the person or the organisation that constructed the fence or any erection has been done. The order mentioned above is subjected to appeal in the higher court according to section thirty of commons act, 1876. These are the conditions that apply to the land which is declared common before the possession of it was given to a person, lord, manor or to an organisation for any purpose of public or private interest. In such conditions the parking of vehicles, erection of cabin, construction of fence by Doncaster wagons can be considered illegal and can be complained to the country court or any relevant government agency. The problem lying here is that the Blue Chester city council did not take any legal action the 12 years of duration. Now the legal question arises that after this much term of negligence towards occupation does the Bluechester city council do have any legal right to take action on Doncaster Wagons ltd. (Swarb.co.uk, 2007) 2. Risk of Doncaster Acquiring Rights There is every chance for the risk of Doncaster acquiring the possession rights as the title to the land is not registered. According to part 9 of the land registration act 1980, after twelve years of adverse possession of the land, which have no title registered, the occupant can acquire possessory title. The limitation act 1980 s15(1) will provide no action to recover the land after the expiration of the limitation period of twelve years under adverse possession. According to this act the expiration of the limitation period will remove the right of the true owner of the land to recover it. The person who possessed the land for 12 years will get the right to get the title superior to all others according to Buckingham shire council v Moran (1990) Ch 623, 635, CA. The period of the possession will be counted from the commencement of adverse possession and that requires a degree of occupation or physical control. This can be coupled with the intention to posses the land without the paper owner according to JA pye (oxford) Ltd v Graham (2002) UKHL 30 (2003) 1 AC 419. The occupation by the Doncaster Wagon Ltd can be termed as seized if the company gives written acknowledgement to the true owners title. Here in this case as the true owner; Bluechester city council have no title registered, there is no chance of that issue according to the 1980 law. The period of the possession of the land can be calculated from the day of the true owner grants a tenancy or licence to the occupier. In this case this did not happen and in the time being the Bluechester city council made number of objections to Doncaster wagons Ltd to vacate it and because they are trespassing. As there is no mention of the Doncaster Wagons Ltd did pay any taxes regarding the land they adversely possess, the right of the ownership that can be claimed after the 12 years of limitation period is at stake. This option will keep alive the hopes of the Bluechester city council to get the re possession of the land. This enables the paper proprietor the land, the Bluechester city council to apply for the proprietorship of the land adversely possessed by Doncaster Wagons Ltd. The main problem is that if the Bluechestor city council want to get the possession of the land from Doncaster wagons Ltd legally it has to inform the court about the adverse possession of the land by Doncaster Wagons Ltd. If it informs to the court that the land is possessed by the Doncaster Wagons Ltd, it has to inform about the time of possession also. This makes the situation favourable to the Doncaster wagons Ltd, as it will be proved that it has possessed the land for 12 years. As there is no title registration, the case may go in favour of Doncaster Wagons Ltd. In this case the Doncaster Wagons Ltd will have upper hand as the Bluechester city council cannot initiate any legal action that proves the 12 year possession of the unregistered title land by Doncaster Wagon Ltd. The Bluechester city council cannot find a reprieve even under the Land registration act 2002. This follows the recommendations in law commission report 254 land registration for the twenty first century. This provides a new guidelines for adverse possession of registered land. This act states that the whatever may be the time of adverse position, that cannot bar the owner's title to a registered estate in land. As the land in the dispute is the freehold estate and the title is not registered, the adverse possession of the Doncaster can be termed valid if the Bluechester city council goes to the court. (Crown, 2002) The Bluechester city council can find a reprieve in the land registration rules 2003 as it gives an opportunity to the squatter to apply for the title of the land after ten years of adverse possession. If this was not objected by any body, the land can be registered on the name of him. Here the objection of the Bluechester can be considered while deciding the ownership of the Doncaster Wagons Ltd. As the Bluechester city council did not take any steps to evict the Doncaster Wagons Ltd, in the 12 years of its possession except reminding them, there is every chance of loosing the land to Doncaster Wagons Ltd. (Gary Webber, 2007) 3. JA Pye v Graham 2002 In case of JA Pye V Graham 2002 case, the court felt that the owner of the land JA Pye lost the the ownership of the land before the law regarding the land registration is passed and this suggested to give the possession to the Graham who is in the possession. In the present caser of Bluechester city council did not lost the ownership to the Doncastor Wagons Ltd (if the adverse possession of the land for 12 years amounts to the loss of the ownership) by the time of the land registration rules 2003 came into existence. This gives a chance to the Bluechester city council to fight for the compensation from Doncaster Wagon Ltd in the case of compulsion of the loosing of the land due to non registration of the title of the freehold estate. Lord Wilkinson in the case of Pye and Graham opined that the occupant has to prove his possession of 12 years to the time of Pye started legal proceedings. If the person or the organization that is in the adverse possession of the land has to prove that the possession completed 12 years by the time the owner started legal proceedings. In the case of Bluechester city council and doncaster city council, the former did not even started the legal proceedings by the completion of the 12 years of the adverse possession of the Doncaster Wagons Ltd. In this case every legal option of trying to vacate them from the site will prove the 12 years possession of the land by Doncaster Wagons Ltd and the case goes in favor of them without the need of any compensation also. This is due to the non registration of the title of the land by bluechester city council. (House of Lords, 2002) 4. Titles of Freehold Estates The Bluechester city council can have the right to take the legal action if they had registered the freehold estate under absolute title, qualified title or possessory title. As the Bluechester city council did not register the land under any of the above title registrations, there is no legal stand for them to evict the Doncaster Wagons Ltd from their site. (crown, 2002) There is a chance under estoppel to prove the adverse possession and to evict the Doncaster Wagons Ltd from the land. The Bluechester city council did purchase the land for the erection of a sports complex. The Doncaster Wagon Ltd has been saying privately that they will stay there until the construction of the sports complex will be started. If these private conversation can be proved in the court of law by Bluechester city council, the court can consider it under estoppel and can consider the eviction of the Doncaster Wagons Ltd to make real the construction of the sports complex. As per all the above observations, if the case goes to the court, the Bluechester city council has very little ground to evict the Doncaster Wagons Ltd due to the fact that it did not register the land in the period of possession or it did not start any legal proceedings against the latter while it was in the adverse possession of the land. References 1. Swarb.co.uk, 2007, the property law, Swarb.co.uk, ,electronic, 1-6-07, http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1925LawofProperty193ffAct.shtml 2. Gary Webber, 2007, LRA and adverse possession, Property Law UK, ,electronic, 1-6-07, http://www.propertylawuk.net/adversepossessionsquatters.html 3. House of Lords, 2002, JA Pye Vs Graham, House of Lords, ,electronic, 1-6-07, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020704/graham-1.htm 4. Crown, 2002, Land registration act 2002, Crown copyright, ,electronic, 1-6-07, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20020009.htm Read More