Who owns my land?

pinkchilli


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 689

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 17:20

My little piece of land may have been populated about 10,000 years ago.



Who owned it then? (Or, when the first settlers arrived?).



Who owned it before the first settlers arrived?



There were a few skirmishes/wars and new people took possession. I appreciate they did not get legal title (Kocan) but nevertheless, they lived there.



This all carried on until ..... eventually a GC got his kocan.



When did the Land Registry get involved? Who allowed them to issue title deeds?



If I can prove I'm related to an early settler, or even someone who lived here before title deeds were issued, then I can claim that my land was stolen from me. Therefore no one can have a clean and absolute title. Except me.



Unless you agree that previous theft of land, by the Hittites, Egypt, Rome, Arabs, Church, United Kingdom, Turkey, etc etc, is acceptable.



For further reading, may I respectfully suggest you click: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Cypriot_history



Thankyou

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 17:34

I read with great interest.



Im sure the "pikey/macha" crew will try to work there make belief crap on it.

pinkchilli


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 689

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 17:52

Jay



They are still reading my "proof".



One MUST always submit proof with anything contraversial.



Have you any proof that you actually read with GREAT interest, not just a mild interest.



Don't forget to attach the source. Your partner witnessing your increased state of excitement is not good enough.



It should be independent, and preferably by anyone with their surname sounding either like their first name, or ending in ...adopolous/....ofides/...erides....etc.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 18:11

pinkchilli,



Let us know how your mitigation goes down when your case reaches court.



Whether it's desperate humour or chutzpah, you're going to need it.

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 19:00

Pinkchilli



In recent history Cyprus was under British and Ottoman rule, we could go back further if you wanted to.



Just because Cyprus was under the administration of the Brits, Turks, Romans etc it does not mean that the legal owner of "your" land becomes the people who administer the area.



So what since 1960 does that mean that all land transfered to the ROC authorities since they administered the area?

Tiggy


Joined: 25/07/2007
Posts: 1994

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 19:11

jay....you did not have to wait long !!

pinkchilli


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 689

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 19:50

How far back CAN you go to discover who were the previous owners?



Could these owners be traceable?



For Macha (chutzpah), it's such a nice sounding word! Not really a serious argument, as the entire world land ownership would collapse.



Just a little point that land ownership has changed hands with force and is accepted (in time).

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 20:53

pinkchilli: "...land ownership has changed hands with force and is accepted (in time)..."



I think the Oramses, and those about to follow in their path, would beg to differ.

RedSnapper


Joined: 12/08/2008
Posts: 540

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 21:01

Precisely Pinky... some of the land must have been sold a dozen times over the past 30/40 years, no institution in the world would pursue or un-pick that trail.

Don`t listen to the scare mongerers, jealous ones or people with historical grudges probably down to some old misguided bitter Cypriot distant relation.

It`s 2009, enjoy yourself and let others wring their hands in frustration.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 21:03

I just been on the http://www.traceyourancestorsbacktotheiceage.net website and blow me down, my ancestor Ivor Landgrabber owned the whole of Cyprus, Turkey and what is now called 'Greece.' And he left a will in stone. Strewth! I'm just checking for more of my long lost family, who knows what I own!

pinkchilli


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 689

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 22:07

rtddci



I have looked at your profile and checked you out at http://www.findarelativethatwillsortoutallyourfinancialworries.com and I believe Hugh U. kiddin (notice the "double d") Landgrabber the cousin of a distant relative of yours had purchased Dubai some 1,500 years ago.



I claim my little piece of Paradise with most of the England first team. I believe I own "The World" and half of "The Palm".



For the non-believers, I don't want to hear any comments that these two Islands have only just been created....



From what bits of land, is all I have to say.



Does Emirates fly from "the dark side"?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 22:13

Pinkchilli. Don't lose any sleep over your land. There will be a 'Land Amnesty' as soon as the two leaders reach a settlement. All those person's who own 'exchange' land and have property sitting on that land will be given the right to stay on it - legally.

RedSnapper


Joined: 12/08/2008
Posts: 540

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 22:34

My Half Cousins Aunty who died last year told me her Step -Sisters Brother-in-Laws Great Grand Father owned part of a farm on Park Lane so it looks like i`m in for a share of the Hilton. Think the penthouse`d suit me fine...

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 23:32

redsnapper: "...some of the land must have been sold a dozen times over the past 30/40 years, no institution in the world would pursue or un-pick that trail."



The Cyprus Land Registry was set up by the British and inherited by the Cypriots. It is accepted by the international community as being the recognised legal authority for ownership all over the island. If you mean any dodgy dealings since the 1960s there may well have been, but that woould be a civil matter to be argued in the courts. IMO it's clutching at straws if anyone thinks they can use a historical argument to try and avoid the consequences of buying "exchange" (someone else's) property.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 00:34

Macha,

I think that you pay too little creedance to the De-facto situation with regard to the trading of esdeger or indeed any land in the TRNC.

It is a fact that the stronger Military stregth upon the Island is the Turkish Army who clearly support the TRNC Administration in its peacfull role as governors of the region.

Whilst it is accepted that The ROC land registry is widely acknowledged as the precident for title records; it is the case that their ability to enforce is somewhat limited.

Of course ,current talks are seeking a solution. Rest assured however, the ROC will be very unlikely to push the de-facto situation asside.

RedSnapper


Joined: 12/08/2008
Posts: 540

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 00:34

So do these registers, books,tomes computer files or whatever recording medium is employed take the grey ,stifled vain and out of date view that behind the barbed wire time has stood still and natural developments and progress has not happened and a time warp exists. Not all of Northern Cyprus is Varosha like or should i get the flares and platforms on.

Not even the former Soviet countries have this view and stance anymore.

The younger generation will leave all this behind them as they move forward into the 21st century.

Must go, Life on Mars is on...

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 00:51

Many of you are still missing the point.



The judge in the Orams case in the UK stated that Mr Apostolidies is STILL the legal owner of the land.



Many people make comments on land matters based on their own circumstances because they have paid for something which courts have already stated does not belong to them. Secondly the administration which they own their property have still to issue them with the piece of paper, which is not internationally recognised, to say that they own it.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 01:01

Stubs Msg 17



"The judge in the Orams case in the UK stated that Mr Apostolidies is STILL the legal owner of the land."



Just to be accurate here the judge in the UK case made no judgment about ownership of the land in question and had no jurisdiction to make a judement about that. The EU laws that allow for the enforcement of one member states judgments in another member state specificaly exclude the 'rejudging' of the case in question. The whole point is that one EU members judgments should be suficent to allow for enforcement in any member country WITHOUT rejudging the merits of the case in each instance. He can and did look at the process of the case in the RoC to make sure proper procedure was followed but he could not and did not look at the merits of the RoC case at all.



Having said that the RoC courts state that Mr A is still the legal owner and the precedents in the ECHR on other cases would support this view.



(cont)

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 01:04

There is alot of confusion regarding the Orams case in the UK and now in the ECJ. Many people think it is looking at the mertis of ownership of the land concerned. It is NOT doing this. That has already been done in the RoC courts. What the UK case was about and now the ECJ ruling is purely on if such a ruling made in the RoC can under existing EU legislation be enforced by EU courts in other member states (and if it can that will be WITHOUT any rejudging of the merits of the case in those courts) or not.

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 01:05

Erolz



go back and re read what I have wrote.



In his findings Justice Jack stated that the legal owner of the land was Mr Apostolidies. That is accurate.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 01:27

Stubs Msg 20



In his ruling Mr Jacks said



"The cases in the European Court of Human Rights show that the laws of the TRNC cannot be relied on by Mr and Mrs Orams to deprive Mr Apostolides of his title to the land."



Maybe I am splitting hairs but to me that is not the same as



"In his findings Justice Jack stated that the legal owner of the land was Mr Apostolidies."



The second implies that he made a RULING about ownership in this case and my point is that he did not and could not for that was not what he was 'judging' or is allowed to make a judgment about.



The full ruling is here btw



http://www.wellestates.com/orams_vs_apostolides.pdf



If I have missed the part where Mr Jacks states (as his own legal opinion or ruling) that Mr A is the legal owner of the land, which I may have, then please do point it out to me.

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 02:33

He reiterated that the legal owner was Mr Apostolides which you will find under point 10.



Quote



"... Loizidiou V Turkey [1997] 23 EHHR 513, as authority that ownership of land in the North of Cyprus remained with its Greek Cypriots owners.........The basic arguement that Mr and Mrs Orams owned the property under title deeds issued by the TRNC was answered by Loizidiou "



Point 30



"....the enforcements of judgements such as the present against the new "owners" of Greek Cypriot property......"



Point 31



" The cases in the European Court of Human Rights show that the laws of the TRNC can not be relied upon by Mr and Mrs Orams to deprive Mr Apostolides of his title to the land"



Erolz



it is a well known fact that the legal owner of land is still the GC refugee. This has been proved in courts. Why do you think that Esdeger deeds are not internationally recognised and there is quite a substantial difference in price between the different types of title deeds?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 03:13

Stubs msg 22



You first quote is Mr Jacks laying out what the RoC Judge said , not his own statements or findings. The full quote from the report is



"She cited the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Loizidou v Turkey [1997] 23 EHHR 513, as authority that ownership of land in the north of Cyprus remained with its original Greek Cypriot owners."



Where 'she' is the RoC judge.



Neither the second or third quote , in my view, are the same as



"In his findings Justice Jack stated that the legal owner of the land was Mr Apostolidies."



"it is a well known fact that the legal owner of land is still the GC refugee."



It is a fact that according to RoC courts and the ECHR, the pre 74 owners remain the legal owners. Both these courts have made such rulings because they have the jurisdiction to make them. UK judges / courts have not made such rulings because they do not have the jurisdiction to do so.



cont

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 03:19

Let me reiterate again why I feel it is important to make the points I have. I think it is important that people understand exactly what the UK and now ECJ rulings and judgments ARE about and what they are NOT about. They are about if under EU laws the RoC judgment can be enforced by UK courts against UK assets or not. They are NOT about the merits of the original case in the RoC (or the merits of ECHR rulings for that matter).

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 03:38

Stubs msg 22



"Why do you think that Esdeger deeds are not internationally recognised"



Actually it is not really the case or issue that these deeds are not recognised internationaly but more a case of the issuing of them can not overide the rights of the pre 74 owners. If they were simply illegal because the TRNC is 'unrecognised' then so too would the deeds of TC land in the north pre and psot 74 sold to thrid parties not be internationaly recognised. The actuality is if a TC with pre 74 land in the north that sold that land to a third party then tired to go to the ECHR claiming the land was still his because the TRNC deeds that said otherwise were not internationaly recognised, the ECHR would throw the case out.



"and there is quite a substantial difference in price between the different types of title deeds?"



There is indeed such a difference, my estimate is in the region of 30%, which reflects the reality that such properties carry more risk.

Hippo


Joined: 02/02/2007
Posts: 2070

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 06:34

There would not have been a problem if the Turkish Army hadn't stopped in Nicosia

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 09:33

pinkchilli

if you do some research online and go to the roc lands office website you will learn a little more about the history of title deeds in cyprus.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 10:11

Is it only me that notices that when such topics arise we see this link:



http://www.cyprus44.com/property/orams.asp



Which is, somewhat "misleading" as the Orams' case has moved on since then and we await a ECJ ruling as to whrther the original RoC judgement CAN be enforced.. a rather different scenario to that suggested...

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 15:14

Erolz



You are splitting hairs here. Justice Jack re-iterated the previous findings of previous courts in his judgement.



There was no way that the judge was going to over or even if he had the power to overturn the findings of different courts.



Anyway as mm says the case has moved on since so it is a matter of waiting and seeing.



One thing i will add Erolz is that many people on here are advocating that it is legally, morally and socially correct to buy certain types of title deeds. Many do not want to see some settlement for their own reasons as they have bought these types of deeds.



What kind of settlement is negotiated is anyones guess. MM has came up with a suggestion which may happen but as we know it is mere speculation until the leaders of both sides come up with a compromise.



For me the issue is a political one and not a legal one as it has now set a very dangerous precedence.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 16:59

Stubs msg 29



"You are splitting hairs here. Justice Jack re-iterated the previous findings of previous courts in his judgement. "



There is a real material and legal difference between a UK judge accepting and recognising rulings of other courts outside of the UK and making such judgments themselves in a UK court.



"Many do not want to see some settlement for their own reasons as they have bought these types of deeds."



Well if you are going to make assumptions about people's agendas this works both ways. You may just as well suggest that Macha's constant attacks on the TRNC are motivated by a desire for a settlement, any settlement no matter how unjust on the TC community, merely because he knows his property in the North will accrue a susbstantial gain in value with a settlement.



"For me the issue is a political one and not a legal one"



Indeed somthing Mr Jacks himself pointed out in his ruling.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 17:05

waz #15,



I accept that only the presence of the Turkish army has allowed illegal property sales in the north, but as soon as they leave the boot is on the other foot.



But even while they are here the legal system has proved that the legal owners of property in the TRNC can take current occupiers to court for their assets and property in the UK.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 17:10

Macha msg 31



"But even while they are here the legal system has proved that the legal owners of property in the TRNC can take current occupiers to court for their assets and property in the UK. "



So far the legal system has shown that pre 74 GC owners can get rulings against the purchasers of property in the North of this disputed property in RoC courts. It has not yet been decided if such RoC rulings can then be enforced in UK courts against UK assets or not under EU law.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 17:13

Erolz: "Actually it is not really the case or issue that these deeds are not recognised internationaly but more a case of the issuing of them can not overide the rights of the pre 74 owners."



Eh? TRNC "exchange" title deeds have as much legal validity as a piece of Andrex because the issuing "authority" has no legal validity. These kocans only rate for anything as long as a Turkish soldier is within sight.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 17:18

Erolz: "If they were simply illegal because the TRNC is 'unrecognised' then so too would the deeds of TC land in the north pre and psot 74 sold to thrid parties not be internationaly recognised."



Again, not true. I was issued with a local "TRNC" kocan when I bought my Pre-74 house, but knowing this was worthless I went to the ROC Land Registry where they gave me an internationally recognised Certificate of Ownership.

Tiggy


Joined: 25/07/2007
Posts: 1994

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 17:19

Post deleted due to offensive remarks.



If you continue to post offensive remarks you will be banned.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 17:23

Macha msg 33



"TRNC "exchange" title deeds have as much legal validity as a piece of Andrex because the issuing "authority" has no legal validity."



This is not the case according to the ECHR rulings. The reason why the ECHR consideres them invalid is not that the TRNC laws have no 'legal validity' but actually that in the case of disputed land the local laws can not override the pre 74 owners rights.



This difference is material. If you are right , which you are not, then YOUR deeds for your pre 74 TC title property in the North would not be legaly valid either.



The idea that TRNC laws are not legaly valid because the TRNC is not internationaly recognised is just plain wrong and this has been shown time and again in many different ECHR rulings. TRNC laws are recognised internationaly but they can not override peoples human rights, just as they can not in any country , recognised or not.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 17:36

Macha msg 34



"I went to the ROC Land Registry where they gave me an internationally recognised Certificate of Ownership."



Why did they not just issued you with RoC title deeds that show you as the legal owner ?

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 17:50

are the moderators all sleeping today?

AJ where are you.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 21:08

msg 38



tiggy seems to get a way with an awful lot of slandering.. i wonder why?