Compulsory acquisition

Dig all

When a government body gets a cpo do they legally have to register the land into their name at the time of getting it . Also what happens if they don't and its 50 years later , and they haven't done nothing with the land since in the last 40 year or more . Does this mean then that they didn't exercise the compulsory purchase Order legally. And if so then the cpo would become void

Mr. Incognito

Compulsory Registration was only required from the 1960s onwards and only in some areas and was gradually expanded.

No-one can tell you if the CPO was exercised legally unless they see the terms of the CPO and how it was executed but:

All land where there is no-one on title belongs to the State anyway so if the CPO failed- then the State owns it by default.

Non- Registration has no effect on legal ownership. It merely registers and records the legal ownership and guarantees it.

In short you cannot register legal ownership unless you already have it.

You can register possessory title which is not legal ownership until the elapsed period of time has elapsed and you go to convert your possessory title to full ownership.

Dig all

So even all the different parcels on the map is registered in different peoples names , your saying the state would still own it ?

GerardKeating

Dig all wrote: »

So even all the different parcels on the map is registered in different peoples names , your saying the state would still own it ?

Assuming they "remember" they did a CPO for it, Yes.

Pat Mustard

Dig all wrote: »

When a government body gets a cpo do they legally have to register the land into their name at the time of getting it . Also what happens if they don't and its 50 years later , and they haven't done nothing with the land since in the last 40 year or more . Does this mean then that they didn't exercise the compulsory purchase Order legally. And if so then the cpo would become void

Most state bodies are required to compulsorily register land.

However, I know of no rule which would invalidate a conveyance under a CPO for want of registration. Such a rule would serve no useful purpose.

Dig all

If the state hasn't got the ground registered to them , I couldnt see them owning it and also not being able to show not one document relating to the ground , neither could they show any copy of a compulsory purchase order either , they also would not be able to claim adverse possession because they pulled out of the land back in the 80s, and have not done anything on it since. Something doesn't add up because if they had any sort of paper work they would of shoved it in the peoples faces long ago, if they can't substantiate their claim I think it looks bleak for them.

ezra_pound

Dig all wrote: »

If the state hasn't got the ground registered to them , I couldnt see them owning it and also not being able to show not one document relating to the ground , neither could they show any copy of a compulsory purchase order either , they also would not be able to claim adverse possession because they pulled out of the land back in the 80s, and have not done anything on it since. Something doesn't add up because if they had any sort of paper work they would of shoved it in the peoples faces long ago, if they can't substantiate their claim I think it looks bleak for them.

So long as the land has been correctly conveyed to it, the state owns the land. Obviously this conveyance would need to be registered in either the registry of deeds or the land registry.

S. 76 & 77 of the land clauses consolidation act provides for lawful process for party applying for CPO to transfer lands into their ownership without the cooperation of the previous owners, or n cases where they cannot be found.

ezra_pound

GerardKeating wrote: »

Assuming they "remember" they did a CPO for it, Yes.

Well, I think it's more a case of so long as the land was legally transferred to the state, the same as any other owner.

Manach

CPO is a means to ensure that land goes to the parties the state presumes to have best use out of it. This is growing in scope from infrastructure to now any reasons where there is a potential economic return for other societal stakeholders. That is my reading from cases like Keko in the US (book "little pink house") or the recent case on land boarding Intel. Thus it would be unlikely the state will not have covered its procedural bases by ensuring registration into state records is not a roadblock.

ezra_pound

Manach wrote: »

CPO is a means to ensure that land goes to the parties the state presumes to have best use out of it. This is growing in scope from infrastructure to now any reasons where there is a potential economic return for other societal stakeholders. That is my reading from cases like Keko in the US (book "little pink house") or the recent case on land boarding Intel. Thus it would be unlikely the state will not have covered its procedural bases by ensuring registration into state records is not a roadblock.

Well the procedure in this state is that if the original owner does not cooperate with the conveyance, or it is not possible to locate him, the CPO body lodges the relevant amount of money in court and then they can transfer the land into their ownership ex parte.

But the land must be conveyed legally.

ezra_pound

This is from the land clauses consolidation act:


Where parties refuse to convey, or do not show title, or cannot be found, the purchase money to be deposited.

76. If the owner of any such lands purchased or taken by the promoters of the undertaking, or of any interest therein, on tender of the purchase money or compensation either agreed or awarded to be paid in respect thereof refuse to accept the same, or neglect or fail to make out a title to such lands, or to the interest therein claimed by him, to the satisfaction of the promoters of the undertaking, (or if he refuse to convey or release such lands as directed by the promoters of the undertaking,) or if any such owner be absent from the kingdom, or cannot after diligent inquiry be found, or fail to appear on the inquiry before a jury, as herein provided for, it shall be lawful for the promoters of the undertaking to deposit the purchase money or compensation payable in respect of such lands, or any interest therein, in the Bank, in the name and with the privity of the accountant general of the Court of Chancery, to be placed, except in the cases herein otherwise provided for, to his account there, to the credit of the parties interested in such lands, (describing them, so far as the promoters of the undertaking can do,) subject to the control and disposition of the said court.

Upon deposit being made a receipt to be given, and the lands to vest in the promoters upon a deed poll being executed.

77. Upon any such deposit of money as last aforesaid being made the cashier of the Bank shall give to the promoters of the undertaking, or to the party paying in such money by their direction, a receipt for such money, specifying therein for what and for whose use (described as aforesaid) the same shall have been received, and in respect of what purchase the same shall have been paid in; and it shall be lawful for the promoters of the undertaking, if they think fit, to execute a deed poll, under their common seal if they be a corporation, or if they be not a corporation under the hands and seals of the said promoters, or any two of them, containing a description of the lands in respect whereof such deposit shall have been made, and declaring the circumstances under which and the names of the parties to whose credit such deposit shall have been made, and such deed poll shall be stamped with the stamp duty which would have been payable upon a conveyance to the promoters of the undertaking of the lands described therein; and thereupon all the estate and interest in such lands of the parties for whose use and in respect whereof such purchase money or compensation shall have been deposited shall vest absolutely in the promoters of the undertaking, and as against such parties they shall be entitled to immediate possession of such lands.

ezra_pound

And this is from the rules of court for making the lodgement:

O.77 r21 superior court rules

(4) In cases of funds to be lodged in pursuance of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or of the Railways Act (Ireland), 1851, and of any Act incorporating the same, the further particulars required under rule 28 shall be stated in the request; and when (otherwise than as hereinbefore provided) funds are to be lodged in Court in pursuance of a statute under which some specific authority is necessary for such lodgment, the request for a direction for lodgment shall contain a reference to such statute and authority, and the requisite authority shall be left at the Accountant's Office.


...And then rule 28 is:
28. Money lodged in Court pursuant to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, section 69, and any statute incorporating the same, shall be placed in the records of the Accountant to the credit of ex parte the promoters of the undertaking, in the matter of the special Act (citing it) and some words shall be added in each case briefly expressive of the nature of the disability to sell and convey, by reason of which the money shall be so paid in, which particulars shall be stated in the request for the direction for the lodgement.