Disputes over land transfer due to differences in land area compared to reality in Vietnam

Lawne would like to answer your questions as follows:

You can refer to the resolution of some of the judgments below:

1. Judgment on land use right transfer contract dispute No. 104/2021/DS-PT

- Judgment level: Appellate

- Judicial body: Can Tho City People's Court

- Quoting the content: "According to the measurement and valuation results on February 20, 2020, the actual measured land area is 1,693.9m2. This land area is reduced compared to the land area of the parties signing the transfer contract. However, Mr. T's side still agreed to receive the above measurement results, only asking to continue the transfer contract so that he could change his name according to regulations. The defendant requested to cancel the contract but failed to prove the fault of the plaintiff. The land area to be transferred is 1805.5 m2. With the parties transferring at the notary public, the defendant signed each page of the contract, but now the defendant believes that there is fraud in the land area. Because the defendant could not prove that he was deceived or coerced, his request to cancel the contract was denied. "The first-instance judgment of the parties to continue to perform the contract is grounded."

2. Judgment 190/DS-PT dated November 3, 2020 on the dispute over the land use right transfer contract

- Judgment level: Appellate

- Judicial body: People's Court of Dak Lak Province

- Quoting the content: "At the time of handing over the land, due to mutual trust, the two parties did not carry out specific marking and measurement to determine the correct land area and lengths of sides. Therefore, the transferor only demarcates the land to the end of the rubber tree area, excluding the coffee land. The process of using up until now the land boundary between the households adjacent to my family has not changed; there is no change, and there is no dispute with anyone. On November 30, 2018, we carried out the procedure of liquidating rubber trees with the Rubber Company to convert to coffee. In April 2019, we cut the rubber tree, re-measured the land to grow coffee, and found that the land area was 13,786 m2 but lacked from about 745.5 m2 to 844.9 m2.

3. Judgment on land use right transfer contract dispute No. 21/2021/DS-ST

- Judgment level: First instance

- Judicial body: People's Court of Chau Thanh district, Ben Tre province

- Quoting the content: "During the transfer agreement, Mr. D and Mrs. B did not have a certificate of land use rights." The two parties did not execute and have notarized or authenticated a land use right transfer contract in accordance with the form.This is a violation of Articles 30 and 31 of the 1993 Land Law. However, after receiving the transfer, Ms. T and Mr. X pumped sand, improved the land, and planted perennial trees. Mr. D and Mrs. B have no objections and have not been handled by the competent state agency, so the contract of land use rights transfer between Ms. T, Mr. X, and Mr. D and Ms. B is not invalidated. The area of land in the 02 handover papers is 1,256 m2, but according to the actual measurement results, the land Mr. D assigned to Mrs. T and Mr. X has an area of 1,078.7 m2 (of which 6.9 m2 Mr. Phan built a house), and 177.3 m2 is missing.

4. Judgment 277/2018/DS-PT dated August 17, 2018 on the dispute over the land use right transfer contract

- Judgment level: Appellate

- Judicial body: Tien Giang Province People's Court

- Quoting the content:  "On June 9, 2015, Mr. H agreed with Mr. Q to transfer the land plot number 3157, with an area of 700 m2 (actual measurement: 671.3 m2)."Mr. H has handed over the full amount of money to Mr. Q, and the two parties have signed a contract to transfer land use rights at the Northwest Notary Office. Then, when Mr. H went through the procedures for granting a land use right certificate, he found that the data and area did not match Mr. Q's certificate of land use rights.
Therefore, the land registration office branch of Cai B district was measured and checked again. After measuring and checking, the actual area matched with Mr. Q's certificate of land use rights, but the number of plots did not match. The competent authority requested that the contract appendix be notarized, but Mr. Q did not agree and did not return the money or carry out the procedures for transferring the name to Mr. H.

Please Login to be able to download