In common law systems, land tenure , from the French verb " tenir " means "to hold", is the legal regime in which land "owned" by an individual is possessed by someone else who is said to "hold" the land, based on an agreement between both individuals. It determines who can use land, for how long and under what conditions. Tenure may be based both on official laws and policies, and on informal local customs (insofar higher law does allow that). In other words, land tenure implies a system according to which land is held by an individual or the actual tiller of the land but this person does not have legal ownership . It determines the holder's rights and responsibilities in connection with their holding. The sovereign monarch, known in England as the Crown , held land in its own right. All land holders are either its tenants or sub-tenants. Tenure signifies a legal relationship between tenant and lord, arranging the duties and rights of tenant and lord in relationship to the land. Over history, many different forms of land tenure , i.e., ways of holding land, have been established.
89-724: A Land Assembly or Assembly of the Land is an assembly of landowners and can refer to: Zemskyy Sobor , the Assembly of the Land of the Russian Empire. Sobor of 1613 , an emergency assembly of the Sobor . Land Assembly of the Slovak Land or Assembly of the Slovak Land , legislative bodies within Czechoslovakia. Land assembly district ,
178-659: A bill that bans the selling and leasing of agricultural land to foreigners. Approximately 7% of the allocated land in Israel is privately owned. The rest, i.e. 93%, is owned by the State and is known as "Israeli Land". Israel's Basic Law on real estate states that Israel's Land is jointly owned by the State (69%), the Development Authority (12%), and the Jewish National Fund (12%). With homelessness and wealth inequality on
267-529: A claim on it in the form of a lien . In modern societies, this is the most common form of land ownership. Land can also be owned by more than one party and there are various concurrent estate rules. In Australia, native title is a common law concept that recognizes that some indigenous people have certain land rights that derive from their traditional laws and customs. Native title can co-exist with non-indigenous proprietary rights and in some cases different indigenous groups can exercise their native title over
356-626: A credible, but yet unproven, claim to Aboriginal title. In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the plaintiff in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia . Rejecting the government's claim that Aboriginal title applied only to villages and fishing sites, it instead agreed with the First Nation that Aboriginal title extends to the entire traditional territory of an indigenous group, even if that group
445-595: A famous dictum in Calvin's Case (1608) that the laws of all non-Christians would be abrogated upon their conquest. Coke's view was not put into practice, but was rejected by Lord Mansfield in 1774. The two doctrines were reconciled, with the Doctrine of Continuity prevailing in nearly all situations (except, for example, public property of the predecessor state) in Oyekan v Adele (1957). The first Indigenous land rights case under
534-480: A lease basis of up to 99 years with an annual 15 percent tax on the total rental paid upfront. Since 2017, A ban on foreigners owning farmland was introduced in the Georgia's new constitution. The new constitution states that, with a small number of exceptions, agricultural land can only be owned by the state, a Georgian citizen or a Georgian-owned entity. In 2021, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev signed into law
623-446: A long time ago, generally before the assertion of sovereignty , and continuity to the present day. Aboriginal title does not constitute allodial title or radical title in any jurisdiction. Instead, its content is generally described as a usufruct , i.e. a right to use, although in practice this may mean anything from a right to use land for specific, enumerated purposes, or a general right to use which approximates fee simple . It
712-545: A party. Significant aboriginal title litigation resulting in victories for indigenous peoples did not arise until recent decades. The majority of court cases have been litigated in Australia, Canada, Malaysia , New Zealand, and the United States. Aboriginal title is an important area of comparative law , with many cases being cited as persuasive authority across jurisdictions. Legislated Indigenous land rights often follow from
801-521: A period of up to 30 year. Only Mongolian citizens can own the land within the territory of Mongolia. foreign citizens can only lease the land. Foreigners are not allowed to own freehold land in Maldives. the land can only be leased to foreigners for 99 years. In 2014, the Sri Lankan parliament passed a law banning land purchases by foreigners. The new act will allow foreigners to acquire land only on
890-493: A real estate term used in the United States. Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Land Assembly . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_Assembly&oldid=1231868667 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description
979-883: A statutory procedure that returned approximately 40% of the Northern Territory to Aboriginal ownership; the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 , had a similar effect in South Australia . The High Court of Australia , after paving the way in Mabo No 1 by striking down a State statute under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 , overruled Milirrpum in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). Mabo No 2 , rejecting terra nullius , held that native title exists (6–1) and
SECTION 10
#17328510307231068-727: Is right-of-way (right to cross), but it could also include (for example) the right – known as a wayleave – to run an electrical power line across someone else's land. In addition, there are various forms of collective ownership, which typically take either the form of membership in a cooperative , or shares in a corporation , which owns the land (typically by fee simple, but possibly under other arrangements). There are also various hybrids; in many communist states , government ownership of most agricultural land has combined in various ways with tenure for farming collectives. In archaeology, traditions of land tenure can be studied according to territoriality and through
1157-493: Is a great variety of modes of land ownership and tenure . Most of the indigenous nations or tribes of North America had differing notions of land ownership. Whereas European land ownership centered around control, Indigenous notions were based on stewardship. When Europeans first came to North America, they sometimes disregarded traditional land tenure and simply seized land, or they accommodated traditional land tenure by recognizing it as aboriginal title . This theory formed
1246-498: Is a system of mutual obligations under which a royal or noble personage granted a fiefdom — some degree of interest in the use or revenues of a given parcel of land — in exchange for a claim on services such as military service or simply maintenance of the land in which the lord continued to have an interest. This pattern obtained from the level of high nobility as vassals of a monarch down to lesser nobility whose only vassals were their serfs . Under common law , Fee simple
1335-462: Is common ground among the relevant jurisdictions that aboriginal title is inalienable, in the sense that it cannot be transferred except to the general government (known, in many of the relevant jurisdictions, as " the Crown ")—although Malaysia allows aboriginal title to be sold between indigenous peoples, unless contrary to customary law . Especially in Australia, the content of aboriginal title varies with
1424-476: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Landowner A landowner is the holder of the estate in land with the most extensive and exclusive rights of ownership over the territory, simply put, the owner of land. The legal concept of land tenure in the Middle Ages has become known as the feudal system that has been widely used throughout Europe ,
1513-896: Is extinguishable by the sovereign (7–0), without compensation (4–3). In the wake of the decision, the Australian Parliament passed the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA), codifying the doctrine and establishing the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT). Western Australia v Commonwealth upheld the NTA and struck down a conflicting Western Australia statute. In 1996, the High Court held that pastoral leases , which cover nearly half of Australia, do not extinguish native title in Wik Peoples v Queensland . In response, Parliament passed
1602-433: Is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world ( Australia , Canada , Ireland , New Zealand , United Kingdom , United States ) being in fee simple . Allodial title is inalienable, in that it may be conveyed, devised, gifted, or mortgaged by the owner, but it may not be distressed and restrained for collection of taxes or private debts, or condemned ( eminent domain ) by the government. Feudal land tenure
1691-430: Is related to indigenous rights , influencing and influenced by non-land issues, such as whether the government owes a fiduciary duty to indigenous peoples. While the judge-made doctrine arises from customary international law , it has been codified nationally by legislation, treaties, and constitutions. Aboriginal title was first acknowledged in the early 19th century, in decisions in which indigenous peoples were not
1780-401: Is relied on as proof of occupation pre-sovereignty, there must be a continuity between present and pre-sovereignty occupation, and (iii) at sovereignty, that occupation must have been exclusive." Subsequent decisions have drawn on the fiduciary duty to limit the ways in which the Crown can extinguish Aboriginal title, and to require prior consultation where the government has knowledge of
1869-404: Is the most complete ownership interest one can have in real property , other than the rare Allodial title . The holder can typically freely sell or otherwise transfer that interest or use it to secure a mortgage loan . This picture of "complete ownership" is, of course, complicated by the obligation in most places to pay a property tax and by the fact that if the land is mortgaged, there will be
SECTION 20
#17328510307231958-401: Is up to 50 years. Though purchase of land is not permitted to foreigners, a real estate investor may apply for a 70 year leasehold with a Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) permit. According to the legislation of Belarus, a foreign citizen cannot own land and only has the right to rent it. As foreigners are prohibited from permanent ownership of land. Foreigners can only lease land for
2047-838: The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination . The 2004 Act was repealed with the passage of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 . The High Court of Australia , which had appellate jurisdiction before 1975, recognized aboriginal title in Papua New Guinea —decades before it did so in Australia—in Geita Sebea v Territory of Papua (1941), Administration of Papua and New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) (the "Newtown case"), and other cases. The Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea followed suit. Schedule 2 of
2136-610: The Constitution of Papua New Guinea recognizes customary land tenure , and 97% of the land in the country remains unalienated. In Alexkor v Richtersveld Community (2003), a suit under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 1994 , lawyers gathered case law from settler jurisdictions around the world, and judges of the Constitutional Court of South Africa talked frankly about Aboriginal title. The Land Claims Court had dismissed
2225-693: The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations , endorsed the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure as the global norm , as the problem of poor and politically marginalized especially likely to suffer from insecure tenure, however, this is merely work in progress. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5 also advocates for reforms to give women access to ownership and control over land in recognition of
2314-469: The Middle East and Asia Minor . The lords who received land directly from the Crown, or another landowner, in exchange for certain rights and obligations were called tenants-in-chief . They doled out portions of their land to lesser tenants who in turn divided it among even lesser tenants. This process—that of granting subordinate tenancies—is known as subinfeudation . In this way, all individuals except
2403-638: The Native Land Act 1909 declared aboriginal title unenforceable against the Crown. Eventually, the Privy Council acquiesced to the view that the Treaty was non-justiciable. Land was also lost under other legislation. The Counties Act 1886 s.245 said that tracks, "over any Crown lands or Native lands, and generally used without obstruction as roads, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be public roads, not exceeding sixty-six feet in width, and under
2492-493: The Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (the "Ten Point Plan"), extinguishing a variety of Aboriginal land rights and giving state governments the ability to follow suit. Western Australia v Ward (2002) held that native title is a bundle of rights , which may be extinguished one by one, for example, by a mining lease. Yorta Yorta v Victoria (2002), an appeal from the first native title claim to go to trial since
2581-594: The Numbered Treaties were void. A variety of non-land rights cases, anchored on the Constitution Act 1982, have also been influential. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) laid down the essentials of the current test to prove Aboriginal title: "in order to make out a claim for [A]boriginal title, the [A]boriginal group asserting title must satisfy the following criteria: (i) the land must have been occupied prior to sovereignty, (ii) if present occupation
2670-731: The Toledo District filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which sided with the Maya in 2004 and stated that the failure of the government of Belize to demarcate and title the Maya cultural lands was a violation of the right to property in Article XXIII of the American Declaration . In 2007, Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh ruled in favor of the Maya communities of Conejo and Santa Cruz, citing
2759-570: The 99-year leases common in the United Kingdom for flats , and allowing various degrees of freedom in the use of the property. Rights to use a common may include such rights as the use of a road or the right to graze one's animals on commonly owned land. When sharecropping , one has use of agricultural land owned by another person in exchange for a share of the resulting crop or livestock. Easements allow one to make certain specific uses of land owned by someone else. The most classic easement
Land Assembly - Misplaced Pages Continue
2848-784: The Australian citizenry as a result of the 1967 referendum . In 1971, Blackburn J of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory rejected the concept in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (the "Gove land rights case"). The Aboriginal Land Rights Commission was established in 1973 in the wake of Milirrpum . Paul Coe , in Coe v Commonwealth (1979), attempted (unsuccessfully) to bring a class action on behalf of all Aborigines claiming all of Australia. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 , established
2937-695: The CKGR. Aboriginal title has been recognized in Common Law in Canada since the Privy Council , in St. Catharines Milling v. The Queen (1888), characterized it as a personal usufruct at the pleasure of the Queen. This case did not involve indigenous parties, but rather was a lumber dispute between the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government of Canada. St. Catharines
3026-472: The Constitution Act, 1982 explicitly recognized and preserved aboriginal rights. R. v. Guerin (1982), the first Supreme Court of Canada decision handed down after the Constitution Act 1982, declared that Aboriginal title was sui generis and that the federal government has a fiduciary duty to preserve it. R. v. Simon (1985) overruled R. v. Syliboy (1929) which had held that Aboriginal peoples had no capacity to enter into treaties, and thus that
3115-653: The Court did not have jurisdiction to make a declaration in favour of the Nisga'a in the absence of a fiat of the Lieutenant-Governor of B.C. permitting suit against the provincial government. Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 ("British North America Act 1867") gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over First Nations, and thus the exclusive ability to extinguish Aboriginal title. Section Thirty-five of
3204-473: The Crown did not intend to extinguish private property upon acquiring sovereignty, and thus that pre-existing interests were enforceable under British law. Its mirror was the Recognition Doctrine, which held that private property rights were presumed to be extinguished in the absence of explicit recognition. In 1608, the same year in which the Doctrine of Continuity emerged, Edward Coke delivered
3293-549: The Federal Constitution and the Aboriginal Peoples Act, as well as decisions from the Privy Council, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. That case was the first time where Orang Asli directly and expressly challenged a state taking of their land. The opinion held that: "the aborigines' common law rights include, inter alia, the right to live on their land as their forefathers had lived." The case
3382-574: The IACHR judgement and key precedents from other common law jurisdictions. The government entered into negotiations with the Maya communities, but ultimately refused to enforce the judgement. In 2008, The TMCC and TAA, and many individual alcaldes , filed a representative action on behalf of all the Maya communities of the Toledo District, and on 28 June 2010, CJ Conteh ruled in favor of the claimants, declaring that Maya customary land tenure exists in all
3471-641: The Maya villages of the Toledo District, and gives rise to collective and individual property rights under sections 3(d) and 17 of the Belize Constitution . A Botswana High Court recognized aboriginal title in Sesana and Others v Attorney General (2006), a case brought by named plaintiff Roy Sesana , which held that the San have the right to reside in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR), which
3560-786: The Native Lands Act 1862, the Native Rights Act 1865 and the Native Lands Act 1865 which established the Native Land Court (today the Māori Land Court ) to hear aboriginal title claims, and—if proven—convert them into freehold interests that could be sold to Pākehā (New Zealanders of European descent). That court created the "1840 rule", which converted Māori interests into fee simple if they were sufficiently in existence in 1840, or else disregarded them. Symonds remained
3649-524: The Native Title Act, adopted strict requirements of continuity of traditional laws and customs for native title claims to succeed. In A-G for British Honduras v Bristowe (1880), the Privy Council held that the property rights of British subjects who had been living in Belize under Spanish rule with limited property rights, were enforceable against the Crown, and had been upgraded to fee simple during
Land Assembly - Misplaced Pages Continue
3738-517: The Philippines under the 1987 Constitution. Foreigners are not allowed to own freehold land in Indonesia. Foreigners cannot buy and own land, like in many other Southeast Asian countries. Instead, the land is collectively owned by all Vietnamese people, but governed by the state. As written in the national Land Law, foreigners and foreign organizations are allowed to lease land. The leasehold period
3827-559: The Privy Council issued many opinions confirming the existence of aboriginal title, and upholding customary land claims; many of these arose in African colonies. Modern decisions have heaped criticism upon the views expressed in Southern Rhodesia . The requirements for establishing an aboriginal title to the land vary across countries, but generally speaking, the aboriginal claimant must establish (exclusive) occupation (or possession) from
3916-402: The Treaty, and facilitate settlements . Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Office (1986) was the first modern case to recognize an aboriginal title claim in a New Zealand court since Wi Parata , granting non-exclusive customary fishing rights. The Court cited the writings of Dr Paul McHugh and indicated that whilst the Treaty of Waitangi confirmed those property rights, their legal foundation
4005-698: The United States, minimal regulation on house flipping and rent-seeking behavior allows for gentrification , pricing out half a million Americans and leaving them homeless. This is in light of 17 million homes left vacant as investment vehicles of the wealthy. At the same time, severe weather events caused by climate-change have become more frequent, affecting property values. In the developing world, catastrophes are impacting greater numbers of people due to urbanization , crowding , and weak tenure and legal systems. Colonial land-tenure systems have led to issues in post-colonial societies. The concepts of " landlord " and "tenant" have been recycled to refer to
4094-513: The availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable , and that it may be held either individually or collectively . Aboriginal title is also referred to as indigenous title , native title ( in Australia ), original Indian title ( in the United States ), and customary title (in New Zealand). Aboriginal title jurisprudence
4183-462: The basis for treaties with indigenous peoples . In several developing countries, such as Egypt and Senegal, this method is still presently in use. In Senegal, it is mentioned as "mise en valeur des zones du terroir" and in Egypt, it is called Wadaa al-yad. Allodial title is a system in which real property is owned absolutely free and clear of any superior landlord or sovereign. True allodial title
4272-530: The beaches, and customary fishing rights on the foreshore. The Limitation Act 1950 established a 12-year statute of limitations for aboriginal title claims (6 years for damages), and the Maori Affairs Act 1953 prevented the enforcement of customary tenure against the Crown. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 created the Waitangi Tribunal to issue non-binding decisions, concerning alleged breaches of
4361-403: The case of chattels closely resembles the landlord-tenant relationship that can be created in land. Secure land-tenure also recognizes one's legal residential status in urban areas and it is a key characteristic in slums . Slum-dwellers do not have legal title to the land and thus local governments usually marginalize and ignored them. In 2012, the Committee on World Food Security based at
4450-416: The common law, Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut , was litigated from 1705 to 1773, with the Privy Council affirming without opinion the judgement of a non-judicial tribunal. Other important Privy Council decisions include In re Southern Rhodesia (1919) and Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria (Secretary) (1921). The former rejected a claim for aboriginal title, noting that: Some tribes are so low in
4539-457: The complaint of the Richtersveld peoples, whose land was seized by a government owned diamond mining operation . The Supreme Court of Appeal disagreed, citing Mabo and Yorta Yorta , but held that the aboriginal title had been extinguished. Whether the precedent will be the start of further land rights claims by indigenous peoples is an open question, given the cut-off date of 1913 in the Restitution Act. The case ultimately did not lead to
SECTION 50
#17328510307234628-405: The control of the Council". Opposition to such confiscation was met by force, as at Opuatia in 1894. A series of Acts, beginning a year after the Treaty of Waitangi with the Land Claims Ordinance 1841, allowed the government to take and sell 'Waste Lands'. Favorable court decisions turned aboriginal title litigation towards the lake beds, but the Māori were unsuccessful in claiming the rivers
4717-400: The degree to which claimants are able to satisfy the standard of proof for recognition. In particular, the content of aboriginal title may be tied to the traditions and customs of the indigenous peoples, and only accommodate growth and change to a limited extent. Aboriginal title can be extinguished by the general government, but again, the requirement to do this varies by country. Some require
4806-432: The exclusion of black African communities, an approach deemed detrimental to the spirit of national unity. The legacy of the Natives Land Act also means that few communities retain relationships with the land of which they held before 1913. Taiwanese indigenous peoples are Austronesian peoples , making up a little over 2% of Taiwan 's population; the rest of the population is composed of ethnic Chinese who colonised
4895-408: The first time in Superintendent of Lands v. Madeli bin Salleh . The Federal Court endorsed Mabo and Calder , stating that "the proposition of law as enunciated in these two cases reflected the common law position with regard to native titles throughout the Commonwealth." The High Court of Kuching held in 2010, for the first time, that NCL may be transferred for consideration between members of
4984-521: The force of law. Malaysian court decisions from the 1950s on have held that customary lands were inalienable . In the 1970s, aboriginal rights were declared to be property rights, as protected by the Federal Constitution. Decisions in the 1970s and 1980s blocked state-sanctioned logging on customary land. In 1997, Mokhtar Sidin JCA of the Jahore High Court became the first Malaysian judge to acknowledge common law aboriginal title in Adong bin Kuwau v. Kerajaan Negeri Johor . The High Court cited
5073-449: The foreshore in Land Court. The Court also indicated that customary aboriginal title interests (non-territorial) might also remain around the coastline. The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 extinguished those rights before any lower court could hear a claim to either territorial customary title (the Maori Land Court) or non-territorial customary rights (the High Court's inherent common law jurisdiction). That legislation has been condemned by
5162-418: The gap between Spanish and British sovereignty. This decision did not involve indigenous peoples, but was an important example of the key doctrines that underlie aboriginal title. In 1996, the Toledo Maya Cultural Council (TMCC) and the Toledo Alcaldes Association (TAA) filed a claim against the government of Belize in the Belize Supreme Court , but the Court failed to act on the claim. The Maya peoples of
5251-442: The government owed a duty analogous to a fiduciary duty toward the Māori. This cleared the way for a variety of Treaty-based non-land Māori customary rights. By this time the Waitangi Tribunal in its Muriwhenua Fishing Report (1988) was describing Treaty-based and common law aboriginal title derived rights as complementary and having an 'aura' of their own. Circa the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 , less than 5% of New Zealand
5340-424: The guiding principle, until Wi Parata v the Bishop of Wellington (1877). Wi Parata undid Symonds , advocating the doctrine of terra nullius and declaring the Treaty of Waitangi unenforceable. The Privy Council disagreed in Nireaha Tamaki v Baker , and other rulings, but courts in New Zealand continued to hand down decisions materially similar to Wi Parata . The Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903 and
5429-436: The importance of tenure to resource distribution. Aboriginal title Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and
SECTION 60
#17328510307235518-437: The inclusion of the Aboriginal title in South African doctrine. Legal scholars allege that this is because the application of terms like 'indigenous' and 'Aboriginal' in a South African context would lead to a number of contradictions. The identity of the indigenous groups in South Africa is not self-evident. The adoption of a strict definition, including only communities descended from San and Khoekhoe people, would entail
5607-456: The independent existence of common law aboriginal title. Native Customary Rights (NCR) and Native Customary Land (NCL) are provided for under section 4(2) of the National Land Code 1965, the Sarawak Land Code 1957, the respective provisions of the National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963, and the Customary Tenure Enactment (FMS). Rajah's Order IX of 1875 recognized aboriginal title by providing for its extinguishment where cleared land
5696-414: The island from the 17th century onward. From 1895 Taiwan was under Japanese rule and indigenous rights to land were extinguished. In 1945, the Republic of China (ROC) took control of Taiwan from the Japanese Empire ; a rump Republic of China was established on Taiwan in 1949 after the Communists won the Chinese Civil War . From then, indigenous people's access to traditional lands was limited, as
5785-436: The legislature to be explicit when it does this, others hold that extinguishment can be inferred from the government's treatment of the land. In Canada, the Crown cannot extinguish aboriginal title without the explicit prior informed consent of the proper aboriginal title holders. New Zealand formerly required consent, but today requires only a justification, akin to a public purpose requirement. Jurisdictions differ on whether
5874-474: The long-term consequences of change and development in land tenure systems and agricultural productivity. Moreover, an archaeological approach to land tenure arrangements studies the temporal aspects of land governance, including their sometimes temporary, impermanent and negotiable aspects as well as uses of past forms of tenure. For example, people can lay claim to, or profess to own resources, through reference to ancestral memory within society. In these cases,
5963-505: The lord with a number of armed horsemen and ground troops. The fees were often lands, land revenue or revenue-producing real property, typically known as fiefs or fiefdoms . Over the ages and depending on the region a broad variety of customs did develop based on the same legal principle. The famous Magna Carta for instance was a legal contract based on the medieval system of land tenure. The concept of tenure has since evolved into other forms, such as leases and estates . There
6052-420: The modern relationship of the parties to land which is held under a lease . Professor F.H. Lawson in Introduction to the Laws of Property (1958) has pointed out, however, that the landlord-tenant relationship never really fitted in the feudal system and was rather an "alien commercial element". The doctrine of tenure did not apply to personalty ( personal property ). However, the relationship of bailment in
6141-407: The monarch did hold the land "of" someone else because legal ownership was with the (superior) monarch, also known as overlord or suzerain . Historically, it was usual for there to be reciprocal duties and rights between lord and tenant. There were different kinds of tenure to fit various kinds of need. For instance, a military tenure might be by knight-service , requiring the tenant to supply
6230-467: The nature of and relationships with aspects of the past, both tangible (e.g. monuments) and intangible (e.g. concepts of history through story telling) are used to legitimize the present. 41 of the Constitution of Afghanistan, foreigners are not allowed to own land. Foreign individuals shall not have the right to own immovable property in Afghanistan Land in China is state-owned or collectively owned. Enterprises, farmers, and householders lease land from
6319-410: The prevailing law until Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1973). All seven of the judges in Calder agreed that the claimed Aboriginal title existed, and did not solely depend upon the Royal Proclamation of 1763 . Six of the judges split 3–3 on the question of whether Aboriginal title had been extinguished. The Nisga'a did not prevail because the seventh justice, Pigeon J, found that
6408-525: The provinces, and provincial law still applies. In 2008, Japan gave partial recognition to the Ainu people . However, land rights were not given for another eleven years. In 2019, Japan fully recognised the Ainu people as the indigenous people of Japan and gave them some land rights if requested. Malaysia recognised various statutory rights related to native customary laws ( adat ) before its courts acknowledged
6497-770: The recognition of native title . Aboriginal title arose at the intersection of three common law doctrines articulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council : the Act of State doctrine, the Doctrine of Continuity , and the Recognition Doctrine . The Act of State doctrine held that the Crown could confiscate or extinguish real or personal property rights in the process of conquering, without scrutiny from any British court, but could not perpetrate an Act of State against its own subjects. The Doctrine of Continuity presumed that
6586-531: The rise, land tenure in the developed world has become a point of issue. Market-based economies which treat housing as a commodity and not a right allow for laws such as California Proposition 13 (1978) that incentivize treating housing as an investment. Due to inelastic demand of the human need for shelter, housing prices can therefore be raised above universally-affordable rates. This complicates tenure by limiting supply and exacerbating homelessness and informal housing arrangements. For instance, in
6675-503: The same community, as long as such transfers are not contrary to customary law . New Zealand was the second jurisdiction in the world to recognize aboriginal title, but a slew of extinguishing legislation (beginning with the New Zealand land confiscations ) has left the Māori with little to claim except for river beds , lake beds , and the foreshore and seabed . In 1847, in a decision that
6764-479: The same land. There are approximately 160 registered determinations of native title, spanning some 16% of Australia's land mass. The case of Mabo overturned the decision in Milirrpum and repudiated the notion of terra nullius . Subsequent Parliamentary Acts passed recognised the existence of this common law doctrine. Under common law , Life estate is an interest in real property that ends at death. The holder has
6853-468: The scale of social organization that their usages and conceptions of rights and duties are not to be reconciled with the institutions or the legal ideas of civilized society. Such a gulf cannot be bridged. Two years later, Amodu Tijani laid the basis for several elements of the modern aboriginal title doctrine, upholding a customary land claim and urging the need to "study of the history of the particular community and its usages in each case." Subsequently,
6942-450: The state is required to pay compensation upon extinguishing aboriginal title. Theories for the payment of compensation include the right to property , as protected by constitutional or common law, and the breach of a fiduciary duty . Australia did not experience native title litigation until the 1970s, when Indigenous Australians (both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) became more politically active, after being included in
7031-750: The state using long-term leases of 20 to 70 years. Foreign investors are not allowed to buy or own land in China. In Thailand foreigners are normally prohibited to own or possess land in Thailand. These restrictions are covered in the land code, articles 96 and following. Under Article 44 of the Cambodian Constitution, "only natural persons or legal entities of Khmer nationality shall have the right to land ownership." foreigners are prohibited to own or possess land in Cambodia. Foreigners are prohibited owning land in
7120-536: The use of the land for life, but typically no ability to transfer that interest or to use it to secure a mortgage loan . Under common law, fee tail is hereditary, non-transferable ownership of real property. A similar concept, the legitime , exists in civil and Roman law ; the legitime limits the extent to which one may disinherit an heir. Under both common law and civil law, land may be leased or rented by its owner to another party. A wide range of arrangements are possible, ranging from very short terms to
7209-512: The ways in which people create and utilize landscape boundaries, both natural and constructed. Less tangible aspects of tenure are harder to qualify, and study of these relies heavily on either the anthropological record (in the case of pre-literate societies) or textual evidence (in the case of literate societies). In archaeology, land tenure traditions can be studied across the longue durée , for example land tenure based on kinship and collective property management. This makes it possible to study
7298-403: Was abandoned. Rajah's Order VIII of 1920 ("Land Order 1920") divided "State Lands" into four categories, one of them being "native holdings", and provided for the registration of customary holdings. The Aboriginal People's Act 1954 creates aboriginal areas and reserves, also providing for state acquisition of land without compensation. Article 160 of the Federal Constitution declares that custom has
7387-504: Was decided in the wake of the Indian Act (1876), which laid out an assimilationist policy towards the Aboriginal peoples in Canada ( First Nations , Inuit , and Métis ). It allowed provinces to abrogate treaties (until 1951), and, from 1927, made it a federal crime to prosecute First Nation claims in court, raise money, or organize to pursue such claims. St. Catharines was more or less
7476-528: Was held as Māori customary land. In 2002, the Privy Council confirmed that the Maori Land Court, which does not have judicial review jurisdiction, was the exclusive forum for territorial aboriginal title claims (i.e. those equivalent to a customary title claim) In 2003, Ngati Apa v Attorney-General overruled In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach and Wi Parata , declaring that Māori could bring claims to
7565-556: Was not appealed to the Privy Council, the Supreme Court of the colony of New Zealand recognized aboriginal title in R v Symonds . The decision was based on common law and the Treaty of Waitangi (1840). Chapman J went farther than any judge—before or since—in declaring that aboriginal title "cannot be extinguished (at least in times of peace) otherwise than by the free consent of the Native occupiers". The New Zealand Parliament responded with
7654-403: Was semi-nomadic and did not create settlements on that territory. It also stated that governments must have consent from First Nations which hold Aboriginal title in order to approve developments on that land, and governments can override the First Nation's wishes only in exceptional circumstances. The court reaffirmed, however, that areas under Aboriginal title are not outside the jurisdiction of
7743-459: Was the common law principle of continuity. The Crown did not appeal Te Weehi which was regarded as the motivation for Crown settlement of the sea fisheries claims (1992). Subsequent cases began meanwhile—and apart from the common law doctrine—to rehabilitate the Treaty of Waitangi, declaring it the "fabric of New Zealand society" and thus relevant even to legislation of general applicability. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General held that
7832-637: Was upheld on appeal, but the Federal Court did not write an opinion. Later High Court and Court of Appeal decisions built upon the foundation of Adong bin Kuwau . However, the ability for indigenous peoples to bring such suits was seriously limited by a 2005 ruling that claims must be brought under O. 53 RHC , rather than the representative action provision. In 2007, the Federal Court of Malaysia wrote an opinion endorsing common law aboriginal title for
7921-455: Was violated by their 2001 eviction. The decision quoted Mabo and other international case law, and based the right on the San's occupation of their traditional lands from time immemorial . The court described the right as a "right to use and occupy the lands" rather than a right of ownership. The government has interpreted the ruling very narrowly and has allowed only a small number of San to re-enter
#722277