Law of Property and the Governments Acquisition of the Land - Essay Example

? PROPERTY LAW By Praedoa Panichsamai Presented of .. Location of college...........due ............. The creation theory states that man had been given authority by God over land and everything therein. The property on the land could be natural or man-made, but all these were subdued by mankind. The man had been managing a massive land where he tilled and produced food and reared animals. There was growth in population from generation to generation which led to this land being shared into smaller units. On the other hand, this increase in families and industries dictated the change in the ownership of land and property. Though there were by-laws which governed the use of land, constant disputes amongst the neighboring communities and individuals emerged. Therefore, there was a need for the laws to be set to regulate the use of land and property in every community (Locke, chap V). The laws regulating the existence of the property differ from one state to another. It is argued that the existence of the property on a piece of land gives one an opportunity to use the land upon which the property is. However, there are the rights of property that, in effect, prohibit or restrict people in using other people’s property. Many countries have adopted these laws. The laws issue legal provisions with regard to land ownership. That is to affirm that only directly involved individuals or close relatives can own a certain piece of land (MacPheron 1987). The law in this context must dictate that private property has to be considered a social and political amenity by virtue of its existence on the land (Blomley 2005). There are critical situations where the government has to concern itself with increment of sports taking part fully in the community as in the case of Horne Dale. This is with the view of making the economy of the country better through proper utilization of the facility. The effort of the government to achieve this could be hindered by a number of factors. These include high prices set by the seller, non-compliant neighbors and the previous occupants of the land. Owing to this, analytical measures to curb this crisis economically will be discussed in detail. Rules that governs the ownership of the property in community minimizes the quarrels between the neighboring individuals. The government mandate is to serve members of a community by regulating property issues. However, the use of the playing fields that are to be put up by the government should have limits to the members for effective service to all members. According to the law, the four charitable companies have ownership over the land by the law of justice which has been set by the state (Ackerman 1977). The high prices the companies may have set for the government could be due to the compensation of the taxes they have been paying for the same piece of land. In this regard, Nozick (1974) argued that the levies paid by an individual or company are a form of political aggression hurled up on them by the government. The companies in their high expectations of high prices from the government could also have been as a result of them thinking they own the piece of land. Contrary to this, Kohler and Clarke (2005) argued that any facility initiated by the government is owned by the government and is a non-profit making property. However, in the event of the government making its financial budget for the year, it may be forced to collect funds from the services provided in the field to reduce the financial constrains. Therefore, the state must diversify a number of activities and make maximum use of the facility by creating more opportunities to involve many participants. In the Insolvency Act 1986, s. 335, it is made clear that if a company is declared bankrupt, the court proceedings will take their course whereby the law of property will apply. In such a situation, the government may apply the law and convert such companies that are not contributing to the economy of the state into a social amenity. It has to be taken into consideration that there will be a close relationship between the neighbors and the facility that will be started by the government on a piece of land. This will cause an interruption to the neighbors’ activities. These interruptions may be in terms of noise from the sports field and/or people trespassing in their land among others. It would force some of them to install sound-proof materials in their houses which might be expensive to them. These neighbors have a right to claim their freedom from this disturbance, and if that is undermined, the new users of the facility in the neighborhood must face the law. Therefore, it is wise for the government to make sure appropriate measures are taken when constructing the facility or to negotiate with its neighbors on favorable terms. This might be better done by the government itself, installing the sound-proof materials on the walls of the facility than installing the same for the neighbors around. It will be uneconomical. On the legal process, there ought to be a winner and a loser. As far as the right to property ownership is concerned, compensation is mandatory. The person being compensated counts his profits as the other counts his losses which arise from intentional lack of knowledge (Demsetz, 1967). Since the government needs the space to improve its economy, it has to agree with the companies to buy the lands by following terms and conditions. The companies will shift the ownership of the land to the government where the land is given in exchange for money. Therefore a legal document, title deed, will be given to the government as the license of its ownership. The title deed is considered valid only if the previous owner of the land is regarded as the one existing. The government has the right to possess the land and anyone interfering with the activities on the piece of land should face the law (Cohen 1954). The ownership of land is also characterized by hiring the land. It reflects a seasonal/ temporary ownership. This is leasing. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between leased land and licensed land. The knowledge of the government’s main form of ownership will also dictate the pricing policies of companies. Thus, it will enjoy the right to ownership by virtue of leasing bestowed to it by the companies. In this regard, the facility put up on the piece of land will only be used for the lease period and after its expiry the government may reapply for another period. Nonetheless, how effective and economical a facility has been is serving the members is a determinant. Otherwise, forfeiting the land would cause economic sabotage of the state (Street v Mountford (1985). As a matter of fact, law and economics have to depend on one another. For instance, where there is determination the laws, the law of tort may have positive or negative effect on the government economy. Therefore, the economy of the state will only be boosted by useful law together with economic monitoring. Such laws that affect the economy are the law of tort termed as common law and the law of negligence. The analysis of the economy of the state based on the law results in proper use of the property and also proper allocation of the resources. It is argued by scholars that if the legal law of the government has no power, the economy will also be weak. However, the government has to strengthen the usefulness of the common law regulating the use of the facilities and this would increase the economy of the state (Posner, 2011). There is also a law that relates bargaining the price of the property and analysis of the cost. It is argued that if the costs of the property are set high, there will be a law that will help to control the price that has to be agreed by the participating parties in exchange for ownership of the property. A neighbor around the new facility has a right to ownership of his property but he might be exposed to too much noise. However, the government will have to win the silence of the neighbor around and this means it will have to bargain with him to compensate for the interruption caused through noise. In this regard, the government is taking risks to incur extra costs to make sure their ownership of the facility does not interfere with the surrounding. Subsequently, those who have been using the facility need to be compensated since there will be displacement of their activities from the existing facility (Melamed, Vol.85, p.1089, April 1972). It is important for the government to put into account the law of tort which dictates the paying back to the affected users of the piece of land and the existing facilities therein. The government will have to bargain with them and compensate for the same because they will be interfering with the existing activities. By so doing, the government will enjoy the use of the facility and have the freedom to expand it in future. This would lead to economic improvement since less cost will be incurred when the property is in their possession. It is the law tort that acts as a mechanism of imposing charges on those who cause damages to others and such losses have to be paid for by the victims. On the hand, the government needs to protect its social status in terms of security of its members and social amenities. It is the law of tort that will make this easy for it to realize its economic balance. The compensation that will be made to the affected parties will be a form of motivation to them. The government may want to maximize the use of land, but there must be considerations. Before the government puts up any project, it should involve the people around, for example neighbors. The project must get full support from the neighbors, otherwise it would move slowly or even stop. The activities on the land may provide unfavorable environment to them and if overlooked may force government to incur extra costs in settling the conflict with the neighbors by compensating them. Having considered possibilities of occurrence of such things, there are laws that have to control the user of the piece of land in relation to the neighbors. For instance, Christie v Davey (1893) 1 Ch D 316 illustrates the case that existed between the two neighbors. One of them undertook noisy activities which denied his neighbor comfort. In the legal field, a neighbor is defined as a person whose activities directly affect the people around him. So the issue of noise really does your neighbor no good. Its claimant must have been treated in this manner intentionally and this led to his neighbor facing the law. These are the issues the government should avoid because it might lead to unplanned expenditures through compensation to those affected by the existence of the facility. In conclusion, the government’s acquisition of the land would be of great importance to its users and will enable them to enjoy the right to use the property. However, for it to realize the economic growth especially from the sports field put up in Horne Dale, there must be legal rules which will regulate the activities of the occupants of the region. In order to avoid extra cost of maintenance, there should be restrictions governing the use of the facility. This may lead to over-usage of some facilities due to specific people using a specific facility. Also, the laws that govern the ownership of the property in the states should be given weight. On the other hand, the facility initiated has to be maximally utilized through diversification of the activities on the property and that will lead to economic growth of the state. Reference List Ackerman, B 1977, Private Property and the Constitution. Yale University press Cohen, F, Dialogue on private property. Blomley, N 2003, The law: Property and Geography of Violence, The Frontier, the Survey and the Grid. Calabresi, G & Douglas A , Melamed. 1972, Property Rules and Liability Rules. Christie v Davey 1893 1 Ch D 316 Materials Demsetz, Towards a Theory of Property Rights. 1967, Extract 3.2, C&K pp. 65-68 Inalienability, Ogus and Richardson 1977, Economics and the Environment: Inalienability. A Study of private nuisance. The Cambridge Law Journal. Insolvency Act 1986 ss 335A Kohler, P & Clark, A, 1977, Private law, commentary and materials. Cambridge University Press Nozick 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia Posner, R. 2011, Economic Analysis of Law chap.3 Street v Mountford 1985 AC 809 Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 esp. ss. 10-15 Locke, J, Second Treaties of Civil Government. Extract 3.5, C&K pp.91-99 Read More