Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Land Law - Essay ExampleFor explaining this statement in relation to inflict law of the UK, developed occupation, Williams & Glyns marge v Bo shoot (1981), City of London Building Society v Flegg (1988), Land Registration Act 2002 Schedule 3, Para 2, LRA 1925 s.70, Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1991), Stack v Dowden (2007) and Jones v Kernott (2012), all will be employed in detail. In accordance with the law of land of the United Kingdom, if a land is not registered, an occupant can acquire the title by way of adverse possession over period of time. It can be make via combination of positive effect of the adverse possession, which gives the occupants title but the negative effect of the Land Act 1980 extinguishes the documentary1. Actual occupation indicates efficient physical control over the land or property. It shows exclusive occupation. Though singly, but on behalf of several occupants. Hence, the owners of the land and the intruders cannot be the occupants of the vacant land at th e same time. Here, the question arises what act determines sufficient degree of exclusive physical control, which must be based on the circumstances. Besides the particular of land in nature and the way it is commonly enjoyed, it is true that everything is based on some specific situation. In a broad term, alleged occupants who have been dealing with the land might have the right to deal with and no other occupant is authorized to get it done. If the land was previously vacant ground depicting well evidence of existing possession, it is neither indispensable nor conclusive2. Land Registration Act 2002 According to the Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 3, Para 2, interests of persons in actual occupation states that an interest belongs at the time of disposition property to a person in actual occupation when he or she is in actual occupation following certain conditions3. The person should have interest under the Settled Land Act 1925, interest of a person against whom inquiry wa s make before the disposition, interest belongs to a person whose occupation was not clear, person to whom the disposition was made was not aware of the factual position and leasehold estate give to take effective possession, could not effectuate at the time of disposition4. In the recent development, the judicial authority of the House of Lords conferred to the newly established Supreme motor hotel. If we present at the judgment of Manchester City Council v Pinnock and Hounslow LBC v Powell, the Supreme Court tried to move on to a new path by realizing the immenseness of human in land law. Public body should not eject an occupier of land if it is disproportionate to do so5. In the case of Berrisford (FC) v Mexfield lodging Co-operative Ltd, the Supreme Court again considered an appeal of eviction keeping in minds that Ms. Berrisford had entered a mortgage under a scheme where against, she sold her house to a housing co-operative. The co-operative society at that time allowed he r to remain in the same house. The co-operative took plea that its agreement with the inhabitant did not create a lease. The Supreme Court was of the view that Ms. Berrisford had a lease for life hence, she could not be removed from her existing place6. The mentioned decision of the apex court of the United Kingdom was widely welcomed by the legal fraternity and the people alike. Take the example of Stack v Dowden, wherein the House of Lords held that determination of an ownership in the property as far as the domestic background is concerned based on the common intention of both the parties.