Main

The Supreme Court upheld the claim of a Moscow resident who sought recognition of ownership rights to a land plot beneath a private house built during the Soviet period.

The Court emphasized that individuals owning buildings constructed prior to the adoption of the Land Code of the Russian Federation retain an exclusive right to formalize shared ownership of the land, even in the absence of original title documents.

Background of the Case

The applicant sought recognition of ownership over a 3,880-square-meter land plot located beneath a residential building that had belonged to her family since 1943. The ownership of the house was established through a contract of sale and the right of development granted in the Soviet period. Over the years, the applicant inherited a share of the property and continued its lawful possession, supported by archival records and historical court decisions regulating the use of the land among co-owners.
Following repeated refusals from government authorities to formalize the land rights, the applicant turned to the courts. The Solntsevsky District Court of Moscow ruled in her favor, recognizing her ownership. However, the appellate and cassation courts reversed this decision, citing insufficient evidence of lawful allocation of the plot.

Position of the Supreme Court

Upon reviewing the complaint, the Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court found that the lower courts failed to take into account the legal principle of unity of the fate of a land plot and the building located upon it.

The Supreme Court clarified that ownership rights to land remain with the owners of buildings erected before the enactment of modern land legislation, even where official documentation confirming the land’s allocation has been lost.

 “Given that the disputed land plot was originally granted under the right of development prior to the enactment of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, and that a residential building is located upon it, the property owners possess an exclusive right to this land,” — stated the Court.

The Court further noted that issues concerning the division of rights to land should be resolved within a single judicial proceeding and not postponed due to formal deficiencies in historical documentation. Courts, the ruling emphasized, must ensure legal certainty in property relations rather than leave ownership undefined.

Outcome

The Supreme Court annulled the appellate and cassation rulings and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, thereby confirming the applicant’s ownership rights. The case was remanded for reconsideration to ensure that the rights of all co-owners of the property are duly taken into account.