Precedent No. 90/2026/AL on the court’s authority to annul land use right certificates, Adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on May 21, 2026, and promulgated under Decision No. 162/QĐ-CA dated May 29, 2026, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a Precedent?
Precedent refers to the arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Court regarding a specific case, selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and promulgated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as a precedent for courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HĐTP)
Selected precedents must meet the following criteria:
– Have the value of clarifying legal provisions that are subject to different interpretations, analyzing and explaining legal issues and events, and indicating the principles, guidelines for handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrating fairness for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– Be exemplary;
– Have the value of guiding the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 90/2026/AL on the court’s authority to annul land use right certificates
2.1. Source of the Precedent
Supervisory Review Decision No. 10/2024/HC-GĐT dated April 16, 2024, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the administrative case “Complaint against administrative decisions in land management” between the plaintiff Mr. Tran Ngoc T and the defendants People’s Committee of G District, Q Province, Land Registration Office of Q Province; with 7 related parties.
Location of the precedent’s content:
Paragraph 5 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.
2.2. Overview of the Precedent’s Content
– Precedent situation:
Due to errors in the procedures for issuing land use right certificates, the competent People’s Committee issued a land use right certificate to a land user that overlapped with a portion of land already covered by a previously issued land use right certificate to an adjacent land user. The person who was incorrectly issued the land use right certificate transferred it to a third party, and the third party was subsequently issued a new land use right certificate. The adjacent land user filed an administrative lawsuit requesting the Court to annul the land use right certificate issued to the third party.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must determine that the land use right certificate is an administrative decision and has the authority to review the legality of the land use right certificate issued to the third party, and to declare this land use right certificate partially or entirely annulled.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
– Clause 1, Article 3, Clause 2, Article 193 Law on Administrative Procedures ò Vietnam 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2019, 2024, and 2025);
– Point d, Clause 2, Article 106 Land Law of Vietnam 2013 (corresponding to Point d, Clause 2, Article 152 of the Land Law of Vietnam 2024);
– Clause 5, Article 87 of Decree No. 43/2014/NĐ-CP dated May 15, 2014, detailing the implementation of a number of articles of the Land Law.
Keywords of the precedent:
“Land use right certificate”; “Administrative decision”; “Annulment of part or all of the land use right certificate”.
CASE CONTENT:
On July 6, 1999, Mr. Tran Ngoc T was issued Land Use Right Certificate (LURC) No. 0888590 by the People’s Committee of G District, for an area of 609m2, colored land type, parcel No. 106/1, map sheet No. 38, in G1 town, G District, Quang Tri Province. On the same day, Mr. Nguyen Van T1 (also known as Nguyen Van T2) was also issued LURC No. 0888599, for a total area of 947m2 of land, including 50m2 of land in parcel No. 106/2, map sheet No. 38, G1 town, G District, Quang Tri Province.
The cadastral ledger prepared by the G District Land Administration Department on December 6, 2001, showed parcel No. 106 as co-used (parcel No. 106/1 registered under Mr. Tran Ngoc T and parcel No. 106/2 under Mr. Nguyen Van T3 (with an added note stating incorrect name, real name Nguyen Van T2)). Mr. Tran Van D was also named in this cadastral ledger as the land user for parcel No. 119, an area of 300m2 of pond land. According to an extract from cadastral map sheet No. 38 in 2001, Mr. Tran Ngoc T’s parcel was located: to the South, bordering parcel No. 119 of Mr. Tran Van D.
On July 10, 2009, Mr. Tran Van D (Mr. Tran Ngoc T’s son-in-law) submitted an Application for LURC for parcels No. 106, 119 (final parcels 222, 223), map sheet No. 38, with an area of 542m2; the land origin was stated as: “land inherited from his father”. On November 26, 2009, the People’s Committee of G District issued Decision No. 2671/QĐ-UBND on issuing LURC to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4, for an area of 542m2 in G1 town, G District, Quang Tri Province, for the purpose of 153m2 of annual crop land and 389m2 of aquaculture land. On the same day, the People’s Committee of G District issued LURC No. AK 842771 to the household of Mr. D and Ms. T4 for an area of 542m2 in parcels No. 222, 223, map sheet No. 38, in G1 town, G District.
On March 29, 2017, Mr. D and Ms. T4’s household entered into a Contract for the transfer of land use rights for 542m2 of land under LURC No. AK 842771 to the household of Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6; the contract was certified by the People’s Committee of G1 town on March 31, 2017. On April 4, 2017, the Land Registration Office, G District Branch, amended the LURC of Mr. D and Ms. T4 to reflect the transfer of land use rights to Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6.
On April 15, 2021, Mr. Tran Ngoc T filed a Statement of Claim, and on June 22, 2021, Mr. Nguyen Van T2 filed an Independent Request, asking the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province to annul all administrative decisions: Decision No. 2671/QĐ-UBND dated November 26, 2009, of the People’s Committee of G District regarding the issuance of LURC to Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4; LURC No. AK 842771 issued by the People’s Committee of G District on November 26, 2009, to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4, for parcels No. 222, 223, map sheet No. 38, in G1 town, G District, Quang Tri Province, with an area of 542m2; the decision of the Land Registration Office, G District Branch, recorded in Section IV of the aforementioned LURC, for the reason that: the People’s Committee of G District, when issuing the LURC based on Mr. D’s application, and later the Land Registration Office, G District Branch, when carrying out procedures for extending land use term and transferring land use rights, failed to inspect and verify, thus issuing an overlapping certificate on the land area already used by their families and for which the State had already issued LURCs.
In Document No. 696/UBND-NC dated May 26, 2021, the Minutes of Meeting dated July 21, 2021, and statements during the case resolution process, the legal representative of the defendant, the People’s Committee of G District, presented:
On page 239 of the 2001 cadastral ledger of G1 town, parcel No. 106, map sheet No. 38, with an area of 659m2, was declared by co-land users, in which Mr. Tran Ngoc T declared use of parcel No. 106/1, area 609m2, and Mr. Nguyen Van T1 (T2) declared use of parcel No. 106/2, area 50m2. By 2009, during the process of issuing LURC to Mr. Tran Van P and Ms. Tran Thi T4, an additional 153m2 (parcel No. 222) and 389m2 (parcel No. 223) were formally declared for Mr. D, adjusted from parcels No. 106, 119.
According to the 2001 cadastral records, the last parcel was No. 224. During the process of preparing land use declaration documents for Mr. D, the next parcel numbers should have been 225, 226, but the officer mistakenly assigned parcel numbers 222, 223. In essence, parcels No. 222, 223 declared for Mr. D were surveyed and adjusted from parcels No. 106, 119; the location of the parcels and land use rights did not change.
The issuance of LURC to Mr. D and Ms. T4 for parcels No. 222, 223 overlapped with a portion of parcel No. 106 because at the time of issuing LURC to Mr. D, the Land Granting Council could not determine that parcel No. 106 had already been issued an LURC, thus proceeding with the initial land granting process for Mr. D and Ms. T4. Therefore, the issuance of LURC to Mr. D and Ms. T4 was not in accordance with regulations.
In 2017, Mr. D and Ms. T4 transferred land use rights to Mr. T5 and Ms. T6. Pursuant to Article 106 of the Land Law 2013, the District People’s Committee cannot revoke an incorrectly issued LURC that has already been transferred.
Therefore, the People’s Committee of G District requested the Court to resolve the case in accordance with legal provisions.
In Document No. 341/VPĐKĐĐ-ĐKCG dated May 27, 2021, and statements during the case resolution process, the legal representative of the defendant, the Land Registration Office of Q Province, presented:
The household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4 had been issued LURC No. AK 842771 by the People’s Committee of G District for an area of 542m2, belonging to parcels No. 222, 223, map sheet No. 38, in Quarter 7, G1 town, G District, Quang Tri Province, under Decision No. 2671/QĐ-UBND dated November 26, 2009, of the People’s Committee of G District.
On February 27, 2017, and February 22, 2017, Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4 submitted documents at the one-stop-shop of the People’s Committee of G District to register changes confirming continued use of agricultural land. The documents included: Application for Change Registration, LURC No. AK 842771. After receiving the documents, the G District Branch of the Land Registration Office appraised and amended LURC page IV on February 27, 2017, with the content: “Continued land use until November 2066”.
On March 31, 2017, Mr. Tran Van T5 submitted documents at the one-stop-shop of the People’s Committee of G District to carry out the transfer of land use rights. The documents included: Contract for transfer of land use rights certified (authenticated) by the People’s Committee of G1 town on March 31, 2017, LURC No. AK 842771 issued on November 26, 2009. After receiving the documents, the G District Branch of the Land Registration Office appraised and amended LURC page IV on April 4, 2017, with the content: “Transfer of land use rights to Mr. Tran Van T5, ID card No. 197077756 and Ms. Tran Thi T6, ID card No. 197204014, address in Quarter 7, G1 town, G District”.
At the times of appraisal and amendment of the LURC by the G District Branch of the Land Registration Office, the Land Registration Office of Q Province found that: the documents met the conditions and ensured correct procedures as stipulated in Article 188 of the Land Law 2013; Articles 75 and 79 of Decree No. 43/2014/NĐ-CP dated May 15, 2014, of the Government; Clauses 2 and 10, Article 9 of Circular No. 24/2014/TT-BTNMT dated May 19, 2014, of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Therefore, the amendment on the LURC for the contents dated February 27, 2017, and April 4, 2017, by the G District Branch of the Land Registration Office was in accordance with legal provisions. It is requested that the Court base its resolution of the case on relevant documents and records in accordance with legal provisions.
Opinions of the related parties:
In Document No. 177/UBND dated August 30, 2021, the People’s Committee of G1 town stated: requested the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province to base its resolution of the case on legal provisions, following the correct procedures and jurisdiction.
In the Statement dated May 24, 2021, Ms. Tran Thi T4 and Mr. Tran Van T7 stated: Mr. D and Ms. T4’s household had a fish pond bordering the land of Mr. Tran Ngoc T and Mr. Nguyen Van T2. Mr. T’s land had a frontage facing the local road. During the process of applying for the LURC, Mr. Tran Van D was the one directly handling the procedures and documents, so Ms. T4 did not know the status of the LURC issuance. Later, Mr. D and Ms. T4’s household transferred the parcel to Mr. Tran Van T5 (Mr. D’s younger brother) and Ms. Tran Thi T6. Ms. T4 only signed, and did not know the specific content. Requested the Court to resolve the case based on legal provisions.
In the Minutes of Witness Statement dated July 27, 2021, Ms. Hoang Thi L and Mr. Tran Van H stated: the origin of the land for which Mr. D and Ms. T4 were previously issued LURC was a fish pond that Mr. H gave to his son, Tran Van D. Later, Mr. D and Ms. T4’s household were issued LURC and transferred it to Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6. This area was originally Mr. H’s fish pond, then Mr. T1 (T2)’s land (a road), and then Mr. Tran Ngoc T’s land. Since it was given to their son Tran Van D, Mr. H and Ms. L’s household currently have no rights to the land area that the People’s Committee of G District issued to Mr. D and Ms. T4 (later transferred to Mr. T5 and Ms. T6).
A portion of Mr. T’s land was revoked by the State; if the State does not use all of it, the remaining area is managed by the State, and Mr. T has no right to file a lawsuit regarding that area.
In the Minutes of Witness Statement dated July 27, 2021, Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6 stated: their household received the transfer of land use rights from Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4 for parcels No. 222, 223, map sheet No. 38 in G1 town. At the time of transfer, Mr. D and Ms. T4 had already been issued LURC by the People’s Committee of G District. The transfer contract was legally notarized. The transferred land area included land belonging to Mr. D and a portion of land belonging to Mr. Tran Ngoc T (Mr. D’s father-in-law) which he had given to Mr. D and Ms. T4. In reality, Mr. T must have given land to Mr. D and Ms. T4 for Mr. D and Ms. T4 to be issued LURC by the People’s Committee of G District. Whether the LURC issuance was correct or incorrect is the responsibility of the People’s Committee of G District. Requested the Court to resolve the case in accordance with legal provisions.
In the Statement of Opinion dated April 20, 2021, Mr. Tran Ngoc C, Ms. Tran Thi T8, Ms. Tran Thi Ai T9, Mr. Tran Ngoc T10 stated: agreed with the opinion of the plaintiff Mr. Tran Ngoc T.
In the Statement of Opinion dated August 2, 2021, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L1 stated: agreed with the opinion of Mr. Nguyen Van T2 and Ms. Tran Thi L2.
Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L3, Ms. Nguyen Thi Nhat L4 had no comments.
In Administrative First-Instance Judgment No. 09/2021/HC-ST dated September 8, 2021, the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province decided:
To partially accept the plaintiff Mr. Tran Ngoc T’s claim and the independent request of related parties Mr. Nguyen Van T2, Ms. Tran Thi L2.
– To partially annul administrative decisions regarding parcel No. 222, map sheet No. 38, area 153m2 of land in G1 town, specifically as follows:
+ Decision No. 2671/QĐ-UBND dated November 26, 2009, of the People’s Committee of G District regarding the issuance of LURC to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4.
+ LURC No. AK 842771 issued by the People’s Committee of G District on November 26, 2009, to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4. The People’s Committee of G District is responsible for re-issuing LURC to the households of Mr. Tran Ngoc T and Mr. Nguyen Van T2, Ms. Tran Thi L2 for the area of 153m2 of land, in parcel No. 222 (adjusted from parcel No. 106), map sheet No. 38 of G1 town in accordance with legal provisions.
– The amendment by the Land Registration Office, G District Branch, on page IV of LURC No. AK 842771 issued by the People’s Committee of G District on November 26, 2009, to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4 is legally invalid, with the content:
+ Continued land use until November 2066.
+ Transfer of land use rights to Mr. Tran Van T5, ID card No. 197077756 and Ms. Tran Thi T6, ID card No. 197204014; address in Quarter 7, G1 town, G District.
The Land Registration Office, G District Branch, is responsible for amending LURC No. AK 842771 issued by the People’s Committee of G District on November 26, 2009, to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4 in accordance with regulations.
The first-instance court also ruled on court fees and the right to appeal as stipulated.
On September 23, 2021, and October 1, 2021, Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6 filed an appeal against a portion of the administrative first-instance judgment.
In Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 19/2022/HC-PT dated February 21, 2022, the High People’s Court in Da Nang decided:
To accept the appeal of Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6.
To amend the decision of Administrative First-Instance Judgment No. 09/2021/HC-ST dated September 8, 2021, of the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province:
To reject the plaintiff Mr. Tran Ngoc T’s claim and the independent request of related parties Mr. Nguyen Van T2, Ms. Tran Thi L2; regarding the requests.
– To partially annul administrative decisions regarding parcel No. 222, map sheet No. 38, area 153m2 of land in G1 town, specifically as follows:
+ Decision No. 2671/QĐ-UBND dated November 26, 2009, of the People’s Committee of G District regarding the issuance of LURC to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4:
+ LURC No. AK 842771 issued by the People’s Committee of G District on November 26, 2009, to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4.
The appellate court also ruled on court fees.
On May 24, 2022, Mr. Tran Ngoc T filed a petition for supervisory review of the aforementioned administrative appellate judgment.
In Supervisory Review Protest Decision No. 67/2023/KN-HC dated September 18, 2023, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested against Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 19/2022/HC-PT dated February 21, 2022, of the High People’s Court in Da Nang; requested the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a supervisory review trial, annul Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 19/2022/HC-PT dated February 21, 2022, of the High People’s Court in Da Nang; and uphold Administrative First-Instance Judgment No. 09/2021/HC-ST dated September 8, 2021, of the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province.
At the supervisory review hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy requested the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court to accept the protest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
COURT’S OPINION:
[1] On April 15, 2021, Mr. Tran Ngoc T filed a Statement of Claim, and on June 22, 2021, Mr. Nguyen Van T2 filed an Independent Request, asking the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province to annul all administrative decisions: Decision No. 2671/QĐ-UBND dated November 26, 2009, of the People’s Committee of G District regarding the issuance of LURC to Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4; LURC No. AK 842771 issued by the People’s Committee of G District on November 26, 2009, to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4, for parcels No. 222, 223, map sheet No. 38, in G1 town, G District, Quang Tri Province, with an area of 542m2; the decision of the Land Registration Office, G District Branch, recorded in Section IV of LURC No. AK 842771 issued by the People’s Committee of G District on November 26, 2009, to the household of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4 is legally invalid (including the content: continued land use until November 2066; transfer of land use rights to Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6), for the reason that: the People’s Committee of G District, when issuing the LURC based on Mr. D’s application, and later the Land Registration Office, G District Branch, when carrying out procedures for extending land use term and transferring land use rights, failed to inspect and verify, thus issuing an overlapping certificate on the land area already used by their families and for which the State had already issued LURCs.
[2] In the Minutes of Meeting dated July 21, 2021, Mr. Phan Van H1, the legal representative of the defendant, stated: on page 239 of the 2001 cadastral ledger of G1 town, parcel No. 106, map sheet No. 38, with an area of 569m2, was declared by co-land users, in which Mr. T declared use of parcel No. 106/1, area 609m2; Mr. T1 (T2) declared use of parcel No. 106/2, area 50m2; by 2009, during the process of issuing LURC to Mr. D and Ms. T4, an additional 153m2 (parcel No. 222) and 389m2 (parcel No. 223) were formally declared for Mr. D, adjusted from parcels No. 106 and 119; according to the 2001 cadastral records, the last parcel was No. 224, during the process of preparing land use declaration and granting documents for Mr. D, the next parcel numbers should have been 225, 226, but the officer mistakenly assigned parcel numbers 222, 223; in essence, these parcels were surveyed and adjusted from parcels No. 106, 119. The location of the parcels and land use rights did not change; the defendant also admitted that the issuance of LURC to Mr. D and Ms. T4 overlapped with a portion of parcel No. 106 because at the time of issuing LURC to Mr. D, the Land Granting Council could not determine that parcel No. 106 had already been issued an LURC, thus proceeding with the initial granting process… Thus, there is a basis to determine that the procedures for approving and issuing LURC to the household of Mr. D and Ms. T4 were not in accordance with legal provisions, leading to errors. Furthermore, according to Mr. D’s Application for LURC dated July 10, 2009, the land origin was stated as inherited from his father, but Mr. D could not provide documents or evidence regarding his being given parcel No. 106 (later parcel No. 222), map sheet No. 38.
[3] In the Minutes of Witness Statement dated July 27, 2021, Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6 stated: their household received the transfer of land use rights from Mr. D and Ms. T4 for parcels No. 222, 223, map sheet No. 38; at the time of transfer, this land area had already been issued LURC by the People’s Committee of G District to Mr. D and Ms. T4, and this land area included a portion of land belonging to Mr. T (Mr. D’s father-in-law) and a portion of land belonging to Mr. D and Ms. T4. He received the transfer of LURC from Mr. D and Ms. T4 based on a legally notarized contract; whether the LURC issuance was correct or incorrect is the responsibility of the People’s Committee of G District.
[4] During adjudication, the first-instance court partially accepted Mr. T’s claim, partially accepted Mr. T2’s independent request, annulled a portion of Decision No. 2671/QĐ-UBND dated November 26, 2009, of the People’s Committee of G District regarding the issuance of LURC to the household of Mr. D and Ms. T4; annulled a portion of the LURC issued by the People’s Committee of G District on November 26, 2009, to the household of Mr. D and Ms. T4; compelled the People’s Committee of G District to re-issue LURC to the households of Mr. T and Mr. T2 for the area of 153m2 of land in parcel No. 222 (adjusted from parcel No. 106) in accordance with legal provisions; determined that the amendment by the Land Registration Office, G District Branch, on the LURC of Mr. D and Ms. T4’s household is legally invalid; the Land Registration Office is responsible for re-amending Mr. D’s household’s LURC, which is justified because: the overlapping land area on the LURC was admitted by the defendant itself; Mr. D could not provide documents or evidence related to the land use rights issued for parcel No. 106, map sheet No. 38 in G1 town, G District.
[5] The appellate court also determined that the issuance of LURC to the household of Mr. D and Ms. T4 overlapped with a portion of the land of Mr. T and Mr. T2’s families. However, the appellate court rejected the claim of Mr. Tran Ngoc T and the independent request of related parties Mr. Nguyen Van T2, Ms. Tran Thi L2, on the grounds that: based on Point d, Clause 2, Article 106 of the Land Law 2013, Clause 5, Article 87 of Decree No. 43/2014/NĐ-CP dated May 15, 2014, of the Government detailing the implementation of a number of articles of the Land Law, the State does not revoke LURCs in cases where an incorrectly issued LURC has been transferred in accordance with land law provisions… the appellate court’s opinion is not in accordance with legal provisions. This is because an LURC is an administrative decision as stipulated in Clause 1, Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedures. The trial panel, within its jurisdiction, reviews the legality of administrative decisions and has the right to declare a part or the whole of an unlawful administrative decision annulled as stipulated in Clause 2, Article 193, Clause 1, Article 241 of the Law on Administrative Procedures. Furthermore, the appellate court’s decision would lead to the simultaneous existence of three LURCs for the same area of 153m2 (the 1999 LURC of Mr. Tran Ngoc T’s household, the 1999 LURC of Mr. Nguyen Van T1 (T2)’s household, and the 2017 LURC of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4’s household, later amended to Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6), which is incorrect.
For the above reasons;
DECISION:
Pursuant to Point a, Clause 2, Article 266, Clause 2, Article 272, Article 273, and Clause 2, Article 274 of the Law on Administrative Procedures.
1. To accept Supervisory Review Protest Decision No. 67/2023/KN-HC dated September 18, 2023, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court against Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 19/2022/HC-PT dated February 21, 2022, of the High People’s Court in Da Nang.
2. To annul Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 19/2022/HC-PT dated February 21, 2022, of the High People’s Court in Da Nang.
3. To uphold Administrative First-Instance Judgment No. 09/2021/HC-ST dated September 8, 2021, of the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[5] The appellate court also determined that the issuance of LURC to the household of Mr. D and Ms. T4 overlapped with a portion of the land of Mr. T and Mr. T2’s families. However, the appellate court rejected the claim of Mr. Tran Ngoc T and the independent request of related parties Mr. Nguyen Van T2, Ms. Tran Thi L2, on the grounds that: based on Point d, Clause 2, Article 106 of the Land Law 2013, Clause 5, Article 87 of Decree No. 43/2014/NĐ-CP dated May 15, 2014, of the Government detailing the implementation of a number of articles of the Land Law, the State does not revoke LURCs in cases where an incorrectly issued LURC has been transferred in accordance with land law provisions… the appellate court’s opinion is not in accordance with legal provisions. This is because an LURC is an administrative decision as stipulated in Clause 1, Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedures. The trial panel, within its jurisdiction, reviews the legality of administrative decisions and has the right to declare a part or the whole of an unlawful administrative decision annulled as stipulated in Clause 2, Article 193, Clause 1, Article 241 of the Law on Administrative Procedures. Furthermore, the appellate court’s decision would lead to the simultaneous existence of three LURCs for the same area of 153m2 (the 1999 LURC of Mr. Tran Ngoc T’s household, the 1999 LURC of Mr. Nguyen Van T1 (T2)’s household, and the 2017 LURC of Mr. Tran Van D and Ms. Tran Thi T4’s household, later amended to Mr. Tran Van T5 and Ms. Tran Thi T6), which is incorrect.”.
* This precedent was proposed by the Department of Supervision and Inspection IV of the Supreme People’s Court and the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province.
