In its Ruling dated May 28, 2025, in case No. 357/7006/24 concerning the recovery of a land plot in favor of the state from unlawful possession by an individual, the Supreme Court, acting through the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, concluded the following:
…The allegation that the disputed land plot overlaps with public land is merely the prosecutor’s assumption, based on an analysis of an extract from the master plan of Bila Tserkva and an extract from the detailed sectoral development plan. However, these documents do not allow for a definitive determination of whether the land plot overlaps with the street area, and no expert examination has been conducted.
⭕️ In its Ruling dated December 4, 2022, in case No. 619/2766/19, the Supreme Court concluded that evidence of full or partial overlap of one land plot over another—or the absence thereof—in cases where legal titles and/or land management documentation contradict each other, includes documents issued by the cadastral registrar as part of the official registration process upon application by the owner or user (including future owner or user), or an expert report issued as part of a land and technical examination. A similar position was expressed by the Supreme Court in its Ruling dated September 17, 2024, in case No. 686/27476/21.
Therefore, the only appropriate evidence in such a case that could confirm or refute the overlap of land plots is an expert report from a land and technical examination, based on which the court can determine whether the claimants’ proprietary rights to the land plot have been violated.
The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in its Ruling dated May 31, 2023, in case No. 515/1315/18.
Thus, the claimant failed to fulfill the burden of proof regarding the alleged violation of state interests (on whose behalf the prosecutor filed the claim), and failed to substantiate that the disputed land plot belonged to public lands. Accordingly, the panel of judges concurs with the findings of the first-instance and appellate courts that there is no legal basis for granting the claim. The prosecutor’s conclusion, based on the analysis of the extract from the detailed development plan for Sector No. 16 of Bila Tserkva, does not constitute valid evidence of the alleged overlap between the disputed land plot and public land. Furthermore, the claimant did not file any motion to initiate a land expert examination in this case.
⭕️ The analysis, review, and/or comparison of cadastral map data with an extract from the Detailed Development Plan (or any other urban planning documentation) does not constitute valid evidence of full or partial overlap or absence of overlap between land plots.
You can discuss case law on land issues in the Urban Planning in Ukraine group.
Yuriy Brykaylo, attorney
Ⓒ 2025