دعوى التعويض أمام محكمة تسوية الأراضي والمياه
Date
2024-06-04
Authors
نور الدين رشاد رشدي صريع
Nour Alden Rashad Roushde Sare
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Al-Quds University
Abstract
ينتجُ عن عملية تسوية الأراضي والمياه سجلٌ عقاريٌ تقيد فيه الحقوق العينية للأشخاص على الأراضي، ويعد القيد في هذا السجل الناتج عن أعمال التسوية قيدًا مطلقًا لا يمكن الطعن فيه أو الاعتراض على قيوده، وذلك حفاظًا على استقرار المعاملات العقارية، إذ أن عملية التسوية وبما توفره من ضمانات في مراحلها لا تدع مجالًا للشك بصحة قيود السجل العقاري الناتجة عنها، وأن هذه القيود _بالتالي_ عنوان الحقيقة بكل الأحوال، إلا أن واقع الحال ومع ذلك لا يخلو من أن يظهر صاحب حق عيني على أرض انتهت فيها التسوية وقيد حقه هذا لآخر في هذا السجل، وقد تدارك المشرع ذلك وشرع بموجب المادة (15) من قانون التسوية رقم (40) لسنة 1952 لبعض الحالات حق الاعتراض على هذه القيود استثناءً لإقامة التوازن بينها كونها انقطع تواصلها وأعمال التسوية، وبين من كان على اتصال بأعمال التسوية، وشرع لحالات أخرى محددة، وبذات الحال، إلا أنها كانت على اتصال بأعمال التسوية، حق إقامة دعوى التعويض أمام محكمة تسوية الأراضي والمياه.
وهدفت هذه الدراسة إلى تسليط الضوء على دعوى التعويض أمام محكمة تسوية الأراضي والمياه من خلال البحث في ماهيتها كنتيجةٍ للقيد المطلق في السجل العقاري الناتج عن أعمال التسوية، ومن خلال التعريف بهذه الدعوى بالوقوف على حالاتها، وأطرافها، والحق المقرر منها، وأساسها القانوني، ومن ثم الوقوف على تنظيمها القانوني الشكلي؛ لما يشكل البحث في موضوع هذه الدعوى بالغ الأهمية من الناحية النظرية كونه لم يسبق البحث الشمولي المتخصص في موضوعها، ومن الناحية التطبيقية كون الدراسة ستشكل دليلًا لمن يهمه الأمر.
وعالجت الدراسة إشكاليتها المتمثلة في تحديد فيما إذا كان لدعوى التعويض أمام محكمة التسوية خصوصيةً في التنظيم القانوني الإجرائي عن سائر الدعاوى المدنية، باستخدام المنهج الوصفي التحليلي، إذ عمدت الدراسة على تحليل نصوص قانون تسوية الأراضي والمياه رقم (40) لسنة 1952 وتعديلاته والأنظمة المتفرعة عنه، وبجانبها التشريعات الناظمة ذات العلاقة، وكذلك من خلال تحليل السوابق القضائية الفلسطينية والأردنية المتعلقة بموضوع الدراسة.
وقد خلصت الدراسة إلى كثير من النتائج، وكان أهمها: أن دعوى التعويض دعوى بطبيعة الدعوى الشخصية يقيمها من لم يقيد حقه العيني على أرض أثناء اعمال التسوية، بأن قُيد هذا الحق لآخر في السجل العقاري في حالتين حصرًا: الغش في جدول الحقوق النهائي، واكتساب حكم صادر عن محكمة التسوية الدرجة القطعية بناءً على تبليغات مزورة. وتقام دعوى التعويض أمام محكمة التسوية، التي تختص في نظرها اختصاصا ولائيًا مكانيًا، ولهذه الدعوى خصوصية عن سائر الدعاوى المدنية في تنظيمها الإجرائي؛ نتيجةً لسريان قانون تسوية الأراضي والمياه رقم (40) لسنة 1952 وتعديلاته عليها كتشريع إجراءات؛ ومن ثم قانون أصول المحاكمات المدنية والتجارية رقم (2) لسنة 2001 فيما خلا منه قانون التسوية، وهذا على غرار الدعاوى المدنية التي يسري على إجراءاتها قانون أصول المحاكمات المذكور.
وخرجت الدراسة بعديد من التوصيات، وكان أهمها: التوصية للمشرع بتعديل الإطار القانوني الإجرائي لدعوى التعويض، بحصره بقانون أصول المحاكمات المدنية والتجارية رقم (2) لسنة 2001، وذلك من خلال إضافة فقرة للمادة (14) من قانون التسوية تتضمن حكم الإحالة لقانون أصول المحاكمات المذكور؛ كونه لا مبرر لخصوصية دعوى التعويض في تنظيمها الإجرائي عن سائر الدعاوى المدنية، ذلك لأن الأحكام الإجرائية التي تخص دعوى التعويض، هي ذاتها التي لدعوى الاعتراض على جدول الحقوق، وإن كانت هذه الخصوصية تصح لدعوى الاعتراض؛ كونها من الدعاوى العينية والتي تمس نتجية الحكم فيها باستقرارية السجل العقاري، إذ قد تعدل قيوده أو تصححها، إلا أنه ليس ما يبررها لدعوى التعويض؛ كونها دعوى شخصية يقتصر الحق المقرر فيها على التعويض النقدي، وأنها بذلك لا تمس باستقرارية السجل العقاري، وبالتالي فليس ما يدعي تداخل التنظيم الإجرائي لهذه الدعوى مع أنها دعوى مدنية كغيرها من الدعاوى التي ينطبق عليها قانون أصول المحاكمات
The land and water settlement process produces a real estate registry in which the real rights of people over the lands are recorded. The entry in this registry resulting from settling all claims is an absolute restriction that cannot be challenged or objected to, in order to preserve the stability of real estate transactions, as the settlement process and the Guarantees in their stages leave no room for doubt about the validity of the real estate registry entries resulting from them, and that these entries - therefore - represent the truth in all cases. However, the reality of the situation is not without the appearance of a holder of a real right over a land in which the settlement has been completed and his right is registered for another person in this registry. The legislator remedied this and legislated it, in accordance with Article (15) of the Settlement Law No. (40) of 1952, for some cases the right to object to these restrictions as an exception, in order to establish a balance between the fact that communication with the settlement process was interrupted, and between those who were in contact with the settlement process, and it legislated for other specific cases, with the same However, it was in connection with the settlement process and had the right to file a compensation claim before the Land and Water Settlement process Court. This study aimed to shed light on the compensation claim before the Land and Water Settlement Court by researching its nature as a result of the absolute registration in the real estate registry resulting from the settlement process, and by introducing this claim by examining its cases, its parties, the right granted from it, and its legal basis, and then Determine its formal legal organization; Why research into the subject of this lawsuit is extremely important from a theoretical standpoint, since comprehensive research specializing in its subject has not preceded, and from a practical standpoint, the study will constitute a guide for those interested. The study addressed its problem of determining whether the compensation claim before the settlement court has a specificity in the procedural legal organization over all other civil lawsuits, using the descriptive analytical approach. The study analyzed the texts of the Land and Water Settlement Law No. (40) of 1952, its amendments, and the regulations deriving from it. In addition to the relevant regulatory legislation, as well as through the analysis of Palestinian and Jordanian judicial precedents related to the subject of the study. The study reached many results, the most important of which was: The compensation claim is a lawsuit in the nature of a personal lawsuit brought by someone whose real right to land was not registered during the settlement work, by registering this right for another in the real estate registry in only two cases: fraud in the final schedule of rights, and obtaining a judgment Issued by the Settlement Court with a final degree based on forged notifications. The compensation lawsuit is filed before the Settlement Court, which has jurisdiction, and this lawsuit is unique from all other civil lawsuits in its procedural organization. As a result of the entry into force of the Land and Water Settlement Law No. (40) of 1952 and its amendments thereto as procedural legislation. Then, the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code No. (2) of 2001, excluding the Settlement Law, is similar to civil lawsuits whose procedures are subject to the aforementioned Code of Procedure. The study came out with many recommendations, the most important of which was: Recommending the legislator to amend the procedural legal framework for compensation claims, by restricting it to the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law No. (2) of 2001, by adding a paragraph to Article (14) of the Settlement Law that includes the referral provision to the aforementioned Procedures Law. ; There is no justification for the specificity of the compensation claim in its procedural organization from other civil lawsuits, because the procedural provisions pertaining to the compensation claim are the same as those for the objection claim to the schedule of rights. Even if this specificity is valid for the objection claim; It is a real lawsuit and the outcome of its ruling affects the stability of the real estate registry, as its entries may be amended or corrected, but this does not justify a claim for compensation. Because it is a personal lawsuit, the right decided upon is limited to monetary compensation, and thus it does not affect the stability of the real estate registry, and therefore there is no claim that the procedural organization of this lawsuit interferes even though it is a civil lawsuit like other lawsuits to which the Code of Procedure applies.
The land and water settlement process produces a real estate registry in which the real rights of people over the lands are recorded. The entry in this registry resulting from settling all claims is an absolute restriction that cannot be challenged or objected to, in order to preserve the stability of real estate transactions, as the settlement process and the Guarantees in their stages leave no room for doubt about the validity of the real estate registry entries resulting from them, and that these entries - therefore - represent the truth in all cases. However, the reality of the situation is not without the appearance of a holder of a real right over a land in which the settlement has been completed and his right is registered for another person in this registry. The legislator remedied this and legislated it, in accordance with Article (15) of the Settlement Law No. (40) of 1952, for some cases the right to object to these restrictions as an exception, in order to establish a balance between the fact that communication with the settlement process was interrupted, and between those who were in contact with the settlement process, and it legislated for other specific cases, with the same However, it was in connection with the settlement process and had the right to file a compensation claim before the Land and Water Settlement process Court. This study aimed to shed light on the compensation claim before the Land and Water Settlement Court by researching its nature as a result of the absolute registration in the real estate registry resulting from the settlement process, and by introducing this claim by examining its cases, its parties, the right granted from it, and its legal basis, and then Determine its formal legal organization; Why research into the subject of this lawsuit is extremely important from a theoretical standpoint, since comprehensive research specializing in its subject has not preceded, and from a practical standpoint, the study will constitute a guide for those interested. The study addressed its problem of determining whether the compensation claim before the settlement court has a specificity in the procedural legal organization over all other civil lawsuits, using the descriptive analytical approach. The study analyzed the texts of the Land and Water Settlement Law No. (40) of 1952, its amendments, and the regulations deriving from it. In addition to the relevant regulatory legislation, as well as through the analysis of Palestinian and Jordanian judicial precedents related to the subject of the study. The study reached many results, the most important of which was: The compensation claim is a lawsuit in the nature of a personal lawsuit brought by someone whose real right to land was not registered during the settlement work, by registering this right for another in the real estate registry in only two cases: fraud in the final schedule of rights, and obtaining a judgment Issued by the Settlement Court with a final degree based on forged notifications. The compensation lawsuit is filed before the Settlement Court, which has jurisdiction, and this lawsuit is unique from all other civil lawsuits in its procedural organization. As a result of the entry into force of the Land and Water Settlement Law No. (40) of 1952 and its amendments thereto as procedural legislation. Then, the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code No. (2) of 2001, excluding the Settlement Law, is similar to civil lawsuits whose procedures are subject to the aforementioned Code of Procedure. The study came out with many recommendations, the most important of which was: Recommending the legislator to amend the procedural legal framework for compensation claims, by restricting it to the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law No. (2) of 2001, by adding a paragraph to Article (14) of the Settlement Law that includes the referral provision to the aforementioned Procedures Law. ; There is no justification for the specificity of the compensation claim in its procedural organization from other civil lawsuits, because the procedural provisions pertaining to the compensation claim are the same as those for the objection claim to the schedule of rights. Even if this specificity is valid for the objection claim; It is a real lawsuit and the outcome of its ruling affects the stability of the real estate registry, as its entries may be amended or corrected, but this does not justify a claim for compensation. Because it is a personal lawsuit, the right decided upon is limited to monetary compensation, and thus it does not affect the stability of the real estate registry, and therefore there is no claim that the procedural organization of this lawsuit interferes even though it is a civil lawsuit like other lawsuits to which the Code of Procedure applies.
Description
Keywords
Citation
صريع، نور الدين رشاد. (2024). دعوى التعويض أمام محكمة تسوية الأراضي والمياه [رسالة ماجستير منشورة، جامعة القدس، فلسطين]. المستودع الرقمي لجامعة القدس.