Case No. 2-1671/2017

SOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Aircraft District Court of Kazan, consisting of

presiding judge L.F. Aulova

with the secretary of the court session R.R. Shigapova,

having considered in open court a civil case based on the claim of Valiev R.R. to Amineva R.R., branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution "Federal Cadastral Chamber» according to the Republic of Tatarstan, SDT “KMPO No.”, Office of Rosreestr for the Republic of Tatarstan on the recognition of survey results land plot invalid, establishing the boundaries of a land plot, correcting a registry error,

INSTALLED:

R.R. Valiev filed a lawsuit in the above formulation. In support of the requirements, indicating that he is the owner of the land plot, with total area 600 sq.m., located at: ter. SDT KMPO-6, on the basis of a contract for the sale and purchase of a residential building without the right to register residence and land plot from DD.MM.YYYY, which is confirmed by a certificate of state registration from DD.MM.YYYY. Plot of land with cadastral number 16:16:213401:1365 belongs to R.R. Amineva.

After receiving the state registration certificate, I began to clarify the boundaries of the land plot. I decided to register the land plot with the cadastral register. In this regard, the cadastral engineer prepared a boundary plan. After which the plaintiff applied to the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Federal Cadastral Chamber of Rosreestr” in the Republic of Tatarstan with an application for cadastral registration of the land plot.

DD.MM.YYYY decision No. was made to refuse to take into account changes to the property, due to the fact that “...one of the boundaries of the land plot 16:16:213401:1045 about the cadastral registration of changes in which an application was submitted, in accordance with cadastral information cross one of the boundaries of a land plot with cadastral number 16:16:213401:1365, which has undergone cadastral registration.”

The plaintiff turned to R.R. Amineva with a proposal to restore the boundaries of the land plot and move the fence she had erected, which was refused.

Based on the above, he requests recognition of the results of land surveying of a land plot with cadastral number 16:16:213401:1365, located at the address: ter. SDT "KMPO 6", invalid; establish the boundaries of a land plot with cadastral number 16:16:213401:1045, located at the address: ter. SDT "KMPO 6", the coordinates of the formed land plot based on the boundary plan of the land plot at the address: , ter. SDT “KMPO 6”, based on the conclusion of cadastral engineer D.R. Mingazova; correct the registration error by making changes to the information of the state real estate cadastre.

The plaintiff's representative supported the claim in full at the court hearing.

The defendant and his representative in court did not admit the claims, pointing out that the boundaries of the defendant’s land plot corresponded to the survey materials. The fence dividing the land plots of the parties is properly erected.

The representative of the defendant, the Office of Rosreestr for the Republic of Tatarstan, did not recognize the claim at the court hearing, explaining that in fact there was a dispute between the parties about the boundaries of the land plot.

Other participants in the process did not appear at the court hearing; the reasons for their absence are unknown.

After listening to the explanations of the persons participating in the case and examining the written materials of the case, the court comes to the following conclusion.

Based on Part 2 of Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to own property, own, use and dispose of it, both individually and jointly with other persons. According to paragraph 1 of the article, the owner has the rights to own, use and dispose of his property.

The State Autonomous Cultural Institution “Russian-German House” filed a lawsuit against D.O. on invalidating the regular annual meeting of premises owners dated dd.mm.yyyy in part, motivating your claim by the fact that dd.mm.Y...

Zarubin D.A. filed a lawsuit against Gazprom Trans Gas LLC, taking into account the clarification of the claims (volume 1, pp. 25-26) requests to oblige Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk LLC to return to the plaintiff the leased and leased land under the land lease agreement ...

SOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Krasnoglinsky District Court composed of:

presiding judge Giniyatullina L.K.,

under secretary O.A. Yavkina,

having considered in open court civil case No. on the statement of claim Zainullin E.R. to the City Administration Samara on invalidating the results of surveying a land plot and establishing the boundaries of a land plot,

INSTALLED:

Plaintiff Zainullin E.R. filed a statement of claim with the Administration of the Samara Urban District, in which he asked to invalidate the results of land surveying in relation to a land plot with cadastral number No., which is part of a single land use with cadastral number No. in terms of the boundaries and overlapping area of ​​the land plot located at the address: with cadastral number No., area 600.00 sq.m, according to the coordinates of the turning points of the coordinate catalog according to the boundary plan made in the following coordinates:

establish the boundaries of the land plot located at the address: with cadastral number No., owned by Zainullin E.R. at the points indicated in the boundary plan executed, which have the coordinates:

establish that the court decision is the basis for making appropriate changes to the information of the state real estate cadastre, motivating his demands by the fact that he is the owner of the land plot located at the address: . The site is previously taken into account; the border is subject to clarification during land surveying. In order to clarify the boundaries of the land plot, a geodetic survey of the site was carried out, and a boundary plan was prepared. According to the data cadastral plan territory there is an intersection of the boundaries of the land plot Zainullin E.R. with the boundaries of a land plot with cadastral number No., which is part of a single land use with cadastral number No. According to the information in the cadastral extract about the land plot with cadastral number No., there is no information about the registration of rights to the land plot. The land for organizing a gardening and dacha partnership in the Orlov ravine was allocated by decision of the Kuibyshev City Executive Committee No. By Decree of the Administration No. on the provision of lifelong inheritable possession of actually occupied land plots in the gardening partnership "Rassvet" citizens were provided with plots of land on a legal basis. The plaintiff's land plot has boundaries that have existed on the ground for 15 years or more and have been secured by a fence since the formation of the dacha partnership. The location of the fence has not changed. The specialist explained that the plot with cadastral number No. was put on cadastral registration by order of the authorized government body in the field of disposal of land plots in Surveying as such was not carried out. Information about the land plot with cadastral number No. was entered into the state real estate cadastre, which indicates an error in determining its location.

At the court hearing, plaintiff Zainullin E.R. did not appear, was duly notified of the day and time of the consideration of the case, did not file any motions to postpone the case.

At the court hearing, the representative of the plaintiff Arslanova I.A., acting on the basis of a power of attorney, supported the stated claims and gave explanations similar to those set out in the statement of claim.

The representative of the defendant, the Samara City District Administration, did not appear at the court hearing, was duly notified of the day and time of the consideration of the case, and provided a response to statement of claim, in which he objected to the satisfaction of the stated demands, asked to consider the case in his absence.

The representative of the third party - TU Rosimushchestvo did not appear, was duly notified of the day and time of consideration of the case, submitted a response to the statement of claim, in which he left the question of satisfying the stated claims at the discretion of the court, and asked to consider the case in his absence.

The representative of the third party, Izyskatel LLC, did not appear at the court hearing, was duly notified of the day and time of consideration of the case, submitted a statement in which he did not object to the satisfaction of the stated claims, and asked to consider the case in his absence.

The representative of the Third Directorate of Rosreestr did not appear at the court hearing, was duly notified of the day and time of consideration of the case, did not file a motion to postpone the case,

The person questioned at the court hearing as a witness, his full name, explained to the court that he uses land plot no. Zainullin E.R. knows, saw him in their dacha area. He also knows that the plaintiff acquired the disputed land plot from his grandmother. Since the purchase, the boundaries of this land plot have not changed, the fence has not been moved. There is a ravine behind their land plots, but no river.

FULL NAME2, questioned at the court hearing as a witness, explained to the court that she was using the land plot no. In this area there is a ravine, there is no river, it disappeared when water was piped about 30 years ago. The ravine is located outside the territory of their land plots, which she has known since birth. She knows that Zainullin E.R. bought a plot of land from Murzina and came to meet her. The boundaries of this area have never changed.

Having listened to the participants in the trial, questioned witnesses, studied and examined the case materials, the court comes to the following.

The court found that the plaintiff Zainullin E.R. is the owner of a land plot with an area of ​​600.00 sq.m., located at the address: cadastral No., which is confirmed by a certificate of state registration of rights dated. series no.

This land plot with an area of ​​600.00 sq.m., located at the address: , previously belonged to FULL NAME3 on the basis of a certificate of inheritance according to the law, issued by a notary FULL NAME4 according to register No. dated

From the case materials it follows that it was created on the basis of a decision of the executive committee of the Kuibyshev City Council of People's Deputies No. " and "Orlov" on the lands of the Kuibyshev State Station for Artificial Insemination of Farm Animals, of which 60 hectares. The Social Security Department of the Soviet District Executive Committee was obliged to create a gardening partnership and develop a charter for a gardening partnership (clause 2 of decision No.).

Information about the land plot with cadastral number No. is entered into the state real estate cadastre, the boundary of the land plot is not established in accordance with the requirements of land legislation, which is confirmed by the cadastral extract of the land plot No.

In accordance with Art. 11.1 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, a land plot is a part of the earth’s surface, the boundaries of which are determined in accordance with federal laws.

In accordance with paragraphs. 8, 9 tbsp. 22 Federal Law No. 218-FZ “On State Registration of Real Estate”, the location of the boundaries of a land plot is established by determining the coordinates of the characteristic points of such boundaries, that is, the points of change in the description of the boundaries of the land plot and dividing them into parts. The area of ​​a land plot, determined taking into account the requirements established in accordance with this Federal Law, is the area geometric figure, formed by the projection of the boundaries of the land plot onto a horizontal plane.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 22 of the Law, the boundary plan is a document that is drawn up on the basis of the cadastral plan of the relevant territory or cadastral extract about the relevant land plot and in which certain information entered into the state real estate cadastre is reproduced and information about the land plot or land plots being formed, or about part or parts of the land plot, or new information about the land plot or land plots necessary for inclusion in the state real estate cadastre is indicated .

As a result of carrying out cadastral work to clarify the location of the boundaries and area of ​​the land plot with cadastral number No., located at the address: , the cadastral engineer prepared a boundary plan from.

The area of ​​the plaintiff's land plot according to title documents is 600.00 sq.m., according to the cadastral engineer - 600.00 sq.m.

The plaintiff applied to the branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution "Federal Cadastral Chamber Federal service state registration, cadastre and cartography" with an application for state cadastral registration of changes in the property, namely a land plot with cadastral number No., providing the above-mentioned boundary plan. However, implementation cadastral registration decision No. was suspended, since when entering into the state real estate cadastre information about the coordinates of the characteristic points of the boundaries of the changed land plot, it was established that the boundaries of this land plot intersect the boundaries of the land plot with cadastral number No.

According to the extract from the Unified State Register of Real Estate on the main characteristics and registered rights to the property from No., the land plot with cadastral number No. is a separate (conditional) plot with a total area of ​​610,652 sq.m., included in a single land use with an area of ​​6,680,477.00 sq.m., located at: cadastral no.

From the case materials it follows that land management work was carried out in order to carry out cadastral registration of the land plot provided by the Samarskoye MP and documents were prepared for its cadastral registration with a total area of ​​891.7 hectares.

From the materials of the cadastral file for a land plot with cadastral number No. it follows that by resolution of the Head No. MP "Samarskoe" a land plot with an area of ​​8917000.00 sq.m. was provided for permanent use, located at the address: , which is confirmed by a certificate of the right of permanent use No.

On the plan of land use boundaries () both enterprise lands of 891.70 hectares and lands of third-party use are marked. Including the lands of the dacha trust marked under the number 4. According to the court, the availability of this information reflected on the plan of the land use boundaries of the Kuibyshevskoye MP was taken into account in paragraph 2.3 of the resolution of Chapter No., according to which the City Committee on Land Resources and Land Management was instructed to conduct an inventory of the lands of outside land users and land plots of citizens located within the land use boundaries "

However, when preparing the description of the land plot provided, the lands of the dacha trust were included in the area of ​​the land plot provided by the Samarskoye MP, which is confirmed by the materials of the cadastral file for the land plot with cadastral number No., the conclusion of the cadastral engineer Arslanova I.A. from, according to which the location and configuration of the site marked with the number 4 (dachas) on the land use boundary plan “completely coincides with the location and configuration of the site with cadastral number No., included in a single land use with cadastral number No.

According to the explanations of the representative of the plaintiff, it follows that when surveying the land plot provided by the Samarskoye MP, no visit to the location of the land plot was carried out, coordination with adjacent land users was not carried out, and therefore, overlaps with other land plots were subsequently identified. When checking the land survey of the Samarskoe MP land plot with the actual boundaries, the original plot was demarcated. However, erroneously, information about the land plot with cadastral number No. was not excluded from the state real estate cadastre.

Having assessed the circumstances established above in totality, the court comes to the conclusion that when carrying out land management work "in relation to the land plot provided by MP "Samarskoye", in violation of clause 2.3 of the resolution of Chapter No., the land plot provided to the plaintiff, having at the time of carrying out the above work, the declared area. In addition, when forming the boundaries of the land plot provided by the Samarskoye MP, the boundaries of the plot were not agreed upon with the legal owners and owners of adjacent land plots, and the surveying took place by overlapping the previously provided land plot owned by the plaintiff E.R. Zainullin.

Thus, during the surveying and registration of a land plot with cadastral number No. on the state cadastral register, which is included in a single land use with cadastral number No., the plaintiff’s land plot, which was provided to the previous owner, FULL NAME3, was mistakenly included in its boundaries, which was provided to the MP land plot "Samara". These circumstances indicate the invalidity of the survey results carried out in relation to the land plot located at the address: , with cadastral number No., included in a single land use with cadastral number No.

In accordance with Art. 8 Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated No. 218-FZ “On State Registration of Real Estate”, information about the real estate object is entered into the state real estate cadastre, including the characteristics of the real estate object, which make it possible to define such a real estate object as an individually defined thing, as well as characteristics that are determined and changed in as a result of the formation of land plots, clarification of the location of the boundaries of land plots.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 64 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, land disputes are considered in court.

The protection of civil rights is carried out by restoring the situation that existed before the violation of the right and suppressing actions that violate rights or create a threat of violation (Article 4, Clause 2, Article 60 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation).

DECIDED

Claims Zainullin E.R. to satisfy.

Invalidate the results of land surveying in relation to a land plot with cadastral number No., which is part of a single land use with cadastral number No. in terms of the boundaries of the land plot located at the address: with cadastral number No., with an area of ​​600.00 sq.m, according to the catalog of coordinates according to the boundary plan, performed in the following coordinates:

Establish the location of the boundaries of a land plot with an area of ​​600.00 sq.m., located at the address: with cadastral number No., in the following coordinates:

This decision is the basis for making changes to the state real estate cadastre in terms of the area and coordinates of characteristic points of a land plot with cadastral number No., which is part of a single land use with cadastral number No.

The decision can be appealed to the Samara Regional Court through the Krasnoglinsky District Court within a month from the date the reasoned decision was made, i.e. With.

Judge Giniyatullina L.K.


Court decisions in the category "Disputes related to land use -> Other disputes related to land use"

FULL NAME1 filed a lawsuit against FULL NAME 2 for the transfer to the plaintiff of rights and obligations under a long-term lease agreement dated (date) for a land plot with cadastral number No., with an area of ​​502 sq.m., located at the address: (address). In support of the claim, it is stated, what n...

The Ministry of Property Relations filed a lawsuit, citing in support that the Office of the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography conducted an administrative survey of the object of land relations: land...

Case No. 2-223/2013

SOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Odintsovo City Court of the Moscow Region, composed of: presiding judge Lavrukhina T.P. with the secretary Kirsanova K.Yu., having considered in open court a civil case based on the claim of N.G. Samokhina, A.N. Samokhina, R.N. Anikeeva. to Felda Yu.V., Administration.... of the district to invalidate the resolution, terminate the ownership of the land plot, invalidate the cadastral registration of the land plot,

INSTALLED:

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Administration.... of the district, Felde Yu.V. on recognition of the resolution of the Administration.... district dated DD.MM.YYYY No. “On the provision of land to Felde Yu.V. for gardening located within the boundaries of.... district, village....., with location at ADDRESS, gardening non-profit partnership "name1", (4th stage), account. No. - invalid; termination of ownership of Felde Yu.V. to a land plot with cadastral number with an area of ​​1000 sq.m., located at the address: ADDRESS; invalidation of cadastral registration of a land plot with cadastral number, area of ​​1000 sq.m., located at: ADDRESS

To substantiate the requirements, they indicated that they are the owners of a land plot with an area of ​​1000 sq.m., located at the address: ADDRESS. Previously, this plot was provided free of charge as the property of the full name by resolution of the Head..... No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, the ownership was also registered .

They carried out work on surveying the site in 2003, previously the site was also surveyed, it was assigned cadastral number

DD.MM.YYYY they became aware that their land plot was put up for sale, and subsequently found out that, on the basis of the contested resolution, the plot was provided to Yu.V. Felde, who registered the ownership of the property. Thus, the Administration... of the district disposed of property that did not belong to it.

In connection with the above, they ask the court to satisfy the claims in full.

At the court hearing, plaintiff Samokhina N.G. supported the requirements in full on the grounds set out in the application, and asked to be satisfied.

Plaintiff Anikeeva R.N. did not appear at the court hearing, was notified of the place and time of the hearing. Representative Anikeeva R.N. – Mikhailov S.S., acting on the basis of a power of attorney, supported the claims in full on the grounds set out in the application, as well as taking into account the conclusions of the expert who confirmed that the plot owned by the plaintiffs and the right to which was registered with the defendant Felde Yu.V. . in fact is one and the same.

Plaintiff Samokhin A.N. did not appear at the meeting, sent an application to the court to consider the case in his absence, and asked that the demands be satisfied.

The representative of the defendant Administration.... district - Shmidtov I.S., acting on the basis of a power of attorney, did not recognize the demand, explaining that the site was provided to Felde Yu.V. Based on the results of consideration of the package of documents presented by Yu.V. Felde, at the time of issuing the resolution, there was no information about the ownership of the disputed site by anyone.

Defendant Felde Yu.V. did not recognize the claim, explaining that he was a member of SNT “name1” with DD.MM.YYYY and in DD.MM.YYYY. he was given the disputed plot, in respect of which he registered ownership. When provided, the site was shown to the SNT Board on the General Plan, and he agreed.

Third parties SNT “name1”, the Administration of the s/p....., the Federal State Budgetary Institution "FKP Rosreestr" by..... did not appear at the court hearing, the court was notified of the place and time of the hearing of the case.

The court, guided by Art. 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation considered it possible to consider the case in the absence of third parties who failed to appear and were notified of the place and time of the hearing of the case.

Having listened to the explanations of the parties and their representatives, and having examined the case materials, the court finds the claims to be satisfied in full. For the following reasons.

According to Part 1 of Art. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, an interested person has the right, in the manner established by the legislation on civil proceedings, to apply to the court for the protection of violated or disputed rights, freedoms or legitimate interests, including with a request to award him compensation for violation of the right to legal proceedings within a reasonable time or the right to execution of a court order within a reasonable time.

Methods for protecting rights are provided for in Art. 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The current legislation does not limit a citizen in choosing a method of protecting a violated right; citizens and legal entities by virtue of Art. 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation has the right to make this choice at its own discretion.

In accordance with Art. 13 Civil Code of the Russian Federation non-normative act government agency or a local government body, and in cases provided for by law, also a normative act that does not comply with the law or other legal acts and violates the civil rights and legally protected interests of a citizen or legal entity, may be declared invalid by the court.

By virtue of the provisions of Art. 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, invalidation of an act of a state body or local government body is one of the ways to protect civil rights.

From the case materials, it is clear that by resolution of the Head.... of the district dated DD.MM.YYYY No. Full name, ownership of land plot No. for gardening, with an area of ​​0.10 hectares, was granted to the member “name1” (4th stage) at ADDRESS (pp. .17).

Ownership of Samokhina N.I. in relation to the provided land plot is registered in the prescribed manner (case sheet 15, 11). The land plot has undergone cadastral registration and has been assigned No. The boundaries of the site are not established in accordance with the requirements of current legislation.

DD.MM.YYYY Full name died. The heirs to the property, full names in equal shares, are Samokhina N.G., Samokhin A.N., Samokhina R.N. (case file 18). The plaintiffs were issued a certificate of right to inheritance by law in relation to the above-mentioned land plot (case file 18).

The legal predecessor of the plaintiffs, as well as the plaintiffs, in relation to land plot No., took actions aimed at its formation as an object of law - land surveying, establishing boundaries, as evidenced by the site plan drawn up by the Land Resources Committee, the Act of establishing and approving the boundaries of the land plot from the DD. MM.YYYY (case sheets 12,13,14).

By the Decree of the Administration.... district dated DD.MM.YYYY No. the right to perpetual use of SNT “name1” (4th stage) (which is the successor to the s/t “name1”) (4th stage) on land plot No. area 1000 sq.m., provided for collective gardening, located within the boundaries of....., village....., with a location at ADDRESS

On the basis of this resolution, the above land plot was provided to Yu.V. Felde. free of charge (case sheet 17). The land plot has been registered in the cadastral register, the boundaries of the plot have been established, the ownership of Felde Yu.F. registered in the prescribed manner (case sheets 16, 33, 74-75).

Based on the appeal of Felde Yu.V. from DD.MM.YYYY the resolution of the Head of the village..... from DD.MM.YYYY No. the land plot with cadastral No. ... of the district was assigned the address: ADDRESS (case file 70).

By Resolution No. DD.MM.YYYY, issued as a result of consideration of the application of Felde Yu.V., the land plot was provided to the defendant Felde Yu.V. in ownership, classified as “agricultural land” with the establishment of the type of permitted use “gardening” (case file 79).

In pursuance of the court's request, the administration... of the district presented a package of documents, the consideration of which led to the publication of the granting of land plot No. to Yu.N. Felde. According to the extract from the minutes of the general meeting of SNT “name1” (4th stage) to ADDRESS from DD.MM.YYYY, by the decision of the said Meeting Felde Yu.V. accepted as a member of SNT "name1".

Meanwhile, from the submitted statement of Felde Yu.V., registered by the District Administration in incoming correspondence DD.MM.YYYY, it is seen that Felde Yu.F. is a member of SNT with DD.MM.YYYY.

When explaining the questions of the court, Felde Yu.V. insisted that he was a member of SNT “name1” with DD.MM.YYYY., however, when he was accepted as a member, he was not provided with a plot, but was provided only 11 years later. Evidence of determining the moment of membership (membership book, documents on payment of the entrance fee, application for membership in SNT, others), as well as the removal of any contradictions that have arisen Felde Yu.V. not provided to the court.

In turn, the current legislation - the Federal Law “On gardening, gardening and dacha non-profit associations of citizens” connects membership in the SNT precisely with the use of land plots, which is the purpose of the association. In connection with the above, the court is critical of the argument of Felde Yu.V. about the emergence of his membership in SNT in DD.MM.YYYY., without the provision of a land plot until 2010, since this contradicts the provisions of the above Law, as well as the purposes of the existence and activities of SNT.

SNT “name1” (4th stage) has its own territory organization, as evidenced by the General Development Plan of SNT “name1” (4th stage) presented in the materials. When reviewing a fragment of the General Plan by the court and the parties to the dispute, both the plaintiffs and the defendant Yu.V. Felde, showing the actual location of the land plots that are the property of each, pointed to the same plot (case sheet 10).

Since special knowledge is required to resolve the dispute, the court ordered a land management examination in the case. the implementation of which was entrusted to Name2 LLC.

Based on the results of the research, an expert’s opinion from DD.MM.YYYY was provided in the case materials. Documents evidencing the boundaries of the land plot provided to the legal predecessor of the plaintiffs were not presented to the expert, meanwhile, in accordance with the site plan with cadastral No., general plan s/t “name 1”, the boundaries of the site , allocated to the property of the full name, generally correspond to the boundaries of the plot with cadastral No., owned by Flda Yu.V., in area, according to the description of the boundaries of adjacent plots, partly by address.

A document describing the boundaries of the land plot No. in s/t “name1” upon its formation: the primary allocation of its full name is the plan of the land plot with cadastral No. The expert compared the data from the specified plan with the actual boundaries of neighboring plots that are adjacent to the plaintiffs’ plot.

The boundaries of plot No. provided to Felde Yu.V. installed in accordance with the requirements of current legislation. The location of the boundaries of the Felde Yu.V. plot, according to the State Committee for Taxation, does not correspond to the actual boundaries of adjacent land plots No. and 437 in SNT “name 1”.

Analyzing the presented materials, the expert came to the conclusion that the boundaries of the land plot with cadastral No., owned by Yu.V. Felde, established in accordance with the requirements of land legislation, overlap with the boundaries of the land plot with cadastral No., not established in accordance with the requirements of land legislation according to the following characteristics: essentially identical address; identical description of boundaries; area of ​​land plots according to title documents is 1000 sq.m; the linear dimensions of the plots are the same: 40.0 by 25.0 sq.m (ld. 108-127).

In accordance with Art. 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the expert’s opinion is not necessary for the court and is assessed by the court according to the rules established in Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The court's disagreement with the conclusion must be motivated in the court's decision or ruling.

Taking into account that the expert’s opinion was drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the current legislation, the expert’s conclusions are motivated by an analysis of the materials of the civil case containing title documents in relation to the disputed real estate, and are consistent with the circumstances actually established in the case, the court has no reason not to trust the expert’s conclusions , in connection with which, the court believes it is possible to use this expert opinion as one of the evidence to justify the court decision.

By virtue of the provisions of Art. 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided by federal law.

As stated earlier, a legal act of a local government body can be declared invalid by a court if there is a duality of circumstances: the act contradicts the requirements of the law and violates the rights of citizens or legal entities.

In accordance with the provisions of civil law, the owner has the right to own, use and dispose of the property owned.

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen can be limited by federal law only to the extent necessary in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of other persons, ensuring the defense of the country and the security of the state.

Taking into account that the expert’s opinion contains a conclusion about the actual coincidence of the plots of the plaintiffs and the defendant, on master plan development by the parties indicated on the same plot, the plots coincide in area, in fact in address, linear dimensions, the court comes to the conclusion that the plot of both the plaintiffs and the defendant is in fact the same.

In turn, since at the time of the issuance of the resolution in relation to the land plot, which the administration disposed of, granting ownership to Yu.V. Felde, there already existed ownership rights, such a disposition is illegal, contrary to the provisions of the current legislation authorizing the disposal of the property of the owners, and unconditionally given order in the form of issuing the contested resolution. It violates the rights of the plaintiffs as owners of property, since it actually deprives them of it.

Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs’ demands for recognition of the resolution of the Administration.... of the district dated DD.MM.YYYY No. “On the provision of land to Felde Yu.V. for gardening located within the boundaries of..... district, s/n....., with the location in ADDRESS, invalid is justified, confirmed, and therefore subject to satisfaction.

The legal consequences of declaring the resolution illegal is the termination of the ownership rights of Felde Yu.V. to the disputed plot, which was generated by a resolution declared invalid, as well as the cancellation of the corresponding entry on the right in the Unified State Register to real estate and transactions with him.

In connection with the satisfaction of the plaintiffs' demands for invalidation of the resolution, termination of ownership of the plot, demands for invalidation of the cadastral registration of a land plot with cadastral number, area 1000 sq.m., located at the address: ADDRESS, are also subject to satisfaction.

When resolving claims for recovery of legal costs, the court is guided by Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. In accordance with the above provisions of the law in favor of Anikeeva R.N. The costs of paying for the examination are subject to recovery in the amount of 15,000 rubles, supported by documents. In turn, the costs of paying for the representative’s services were not confirmed by the plaintiff, and the costs of payment state duty incurred by Anikeev A.V.. power of attorney in whose name from Anikeeva R.N. was not issued, from the explanations of the parties it is known that the specified person acted as a representative of A.N. Samokhin.

Based on the above and guided by Art. 12, 194-198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

DECIDED:

Claims of Samokhina N.G., Samokhina A.N., Anikeeva R.N. - to satisfy.

Recognize the resolution of the Administration.... district dated DD.MM.YYYY No. “On the provision of land to Felde Yu.V. for gardening located within the boundaries of..... district, village....., with the location in ADDRESS - invalid.

Terminate ownership of Felde Yu.V. for a land plot with cadastral number, an area of ​​1000 sq.m., located at the address: ADDRESS

Cancel an entry in Unified state register rights to real estate and transactions with it No. dated DD.MM.YYYY

Invalidate the cadastral registration of a land plot with cadastral number, with an area of ​​1000 sq.m., located at the address: ADDRESS

Collect in equal shares from the Administration.... district, Felde Yu.V. in favor of Anikeeva R.N. expenses for the examination in the amount of 15,000 rubles.

To satisfy the requirements of Anikeeva R.N. to the administration .... of the district to recover the costs of paying the state duty, the costs of paying for the services of a representative - refuse.

The decision can be appealed to the Moscow Regional Court through the Odintsovo City Court within one month.

Federal Judge: T.P. Lavrukhina

Every property owner needs qualified legal support sooner and later. And this is not surprising, because in modern world Many situations arise when it is necessary to enter or remove a land plot from cadastral registration, or to invalidate a cadastral passport or survey results. And the mistakes made during land surveying and the reflection of this in state cadastre- alas, not uncommon.

What does a cadastral passport include?

Let's turn to the official terminology. By cadastral passport we all understand a document of the established form that contains data about the object for state registration of property rights. And for land plots it may also contain land surveying data.

The concept of “land demarcation” refers to a method of calculating the boundaries of a land plot in the horizontal plane, which is carried out by cadastral engineers of geodetic companies.

The cadastral passport data records the address of the site, its number, area and category of land, and official intended use. This combination is individual throughout the country. During cadastral registration, even without land surveying, a plot of land is assigned a unique number, which characterizes the uniqueness of the land plot and its individual identity.

Is it possible to invalidate a cadastral passport independently in court?

We often encounter problems with registering land among our clients, obtaining the necessary documentation, in particular assigning a unique number to a land plot. And these days it is impossible to carry out any actions with land without a cadastral passport - not to donate, not to bequeath, not to sell.

Moreover, in our time, private companies often appear that seek to profit from confusion with land. In judicial practice, claims now often appear regarding the invalidation of a cadastral passport and the removal cadastral plot with registration due to the fact that the data in it is filled out incorrectly, and the survey results require an appeal.

The plaintiffs in such cases, as a rule, are the owners of plots of land previously included in the cadastral register, the boundaries of which were not fixed by boundary signs. When a cadastral engineer submits a boundary plan, it may sometimes turn out that on your land there is a neighbor’s fence, a bathhouse with a shed, or a garage. There are cases when a neighboring building is located on adjacent boundaries. Sometimes the cadastral passport incorrectly indicates the area or intended use of the land.

The usual reaction to the identification of such errors is to go to court with a demand to invalidate the cadastral passport and remove the plot from cadastral registration. But, unfortunately, often ordinary lawyers or lawyers do not have the proper training to properly handle and win such cases. And the success of the case, by and large, largely depends on the above-mentioned conclusion of the cadastral engineer, who can prepare such a conclusion in pre-trial procedure and in court. But our company has extensive experience in resolving such cases in favor of our clients. We have all the necessary knowledge and experience in dealing with cases of invalidation of cadastral passports, based on the documentary data provided to us.

Why do situations arise with incorrect registration of cadastral passports and land surveying?

Sometimes, real estate buyers do not understand the laws well. And they believe that the more money spent on the privatization of a site, its surveying based on the conclusion of a cadastral company and its registration, the more correctly the site is registered.

Of course, land owners can take advantage of this circumstance when selling their real estate. Although the buyer has the right after the purchase to additionally order land surveying and make adjustments to the cadastral passport. We provide support at all stages of such cases. If you are not sure that the registration of your land plot has been completed correctly or you have doubts about its area and boundaries, then contact us.

If the survey results are reflected in the cadastral passport, then it is worth considering that this is a fairly accurate engineering work. And it should only be carried out by qualified specialists.

If previously land surveying was registered with the BTI, and this controlled a certain order and quality of the work performed, now not everyone has the qualities to perform their work competently and conscientiously. Now the error rate cadastral engineers is about 15%.
Removing the plot from cadastral registration and invalidating the erroneously issued cadastral passport, as well as challenging adjacent boundaries, will be the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights to his land plot that existed before their violation.

On what grounds can a cadastral passport be declared invalid?

The grounds for invalidating a cadastral passport may vary from an incorrectly established area to adjacent borders with neighbors. But everyone can protect their right to be the owner of a land plot, depending on the stage of registration of documents for it.

After all, an incorrectly designed site can bring a lot of trouble in the future when carrying out any actions with it. Therefore, it is so important to seek qualified support in solving such a difficult task, because very often land owners receive a refusal in court if they apply independently and do not properly study the intricacies of the case.