How to defend their right to land?

Discordance land borders with adjacent property owners and land users is not a ground for refusing the village council in approving technical documentation. Perhaps even more since the inception of the Roman law so happened that a neighbor neighbor wolf. In addition to personal animosity and gossip, you can start building plots. How to be in a situation, if unfriendly neighbors put spokes in the wheel and prevent the realization of your legal right to, say, the privatization of adjoining land? This is what we learn from the consideration of judicial decisions. In 2005, LA, being the owner of a house on the land, appealed to the Village Council a statement on the privatization of this land. The decision of village council session, said from 26.07.2005 he was granted permission to produce technical documentation. Documentation for the privatization of land has been prepared by the applicant paid the money for its manufacture. However, the neighbors (the defendant) refused to sign the act of harmonizing land borders, citing the refusal of personal dislike to him, and the presence of a dispute on the release of the roadway impasse. The decision of the Village Council of 31.08.2007 L. denied approval of technical documentation for the compilation of the State act on the private ownership of land and proposed to resolve the matter according to Art. 103 of the Land Code of Good. Another solution of the same village council on 09.10.2007 agreed boundaries of land all the conflicting parties, provided that the parties at the same time provide for review and approval of the village council acts matching borders and technical documents on land management in the compilation of documents attesting to the ownership of the land. In November 2007, AL appealed to the city court for the removal of obstacles in approving the technical documentation for the preparation of the State act on the private ownership of land. In particular, the plaintiff asked to invalidate pp. 2 and 3 of the decision of the village council of 31.08.2007 and the decision of the same advice from 09.10.2007, which were created obstacles to the realization of their right to land privatization. City Court decision from 26.03.2008, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal on 19.06.2008, the claim is denied. The plaintiff filed an appeal. The cassation court accepted the complaint for consideration. Lower courts, denying the claims, proceeded from the fact that the village council decisions comply with the law, adopted within the Council's powers, does not violate plaintiff's rights, so there are no grounds for declaring them null and void. Other demands LA is not an appropriate method of protection of civil rights. However, the Supreme Court with such conclusions courts disagreed. And here's why. In accordance with the rules of art. 118 LC, a citizen interested in the privatization of land, located in its use, submits an application to the appropriate local council according to the location of land. Decisions of local governments on the privatization of land is taken within a month, on the basis of technical materials and documents confirming the amount of land. According to the Regulations on the Procedure for preparation, issuance, registration and storage of state acts on the ownership of the land and the right of permanent use of land and leases of land, approved by order of the State Committee on land resources from 05.04.1999, the technical documentation for the preparation of the state act ownership of land does not contain requirements harmonize land borders with adjacent land owners and land users. Thus, solving the dispute, the courts referred to the requirements of legislation are not taken into account, came to the unwarranted conclusion that the impugned decision of the village council did not violate the rights of the plaintiff, because discordance land borders with adjacent property owners and land users can not serve as grounds for refusal of the village council in the approval of technical documentation. In violation of Articles 212-214 GIC courts correctly applied the substantive law have not figured out the subject of the claim, or whether the circumstances exist to justify claims and defenses of the parties, whether the relationship of the parties derive from the established circumstances, which are essential for the proper resolution of the dispute. In such circumstances, MAT overturned the decisions of lower courts to transfer cases to a new trial in the court of first instance.