Kwanini migogoro ya ardhi haimaliziki au kupungua, tatizo ni sheria, watendaji au wananchi?

[chiembe]

Demand and supply,supply ya mwisho ya ardhi ilifanywa dunia ilpoumbwa ikiwa na watu wawïli,leo demand ni ya watu mabilioni,pia sayansi na teknolojia,fuga mifugo michache kisasa,watu wa kilimo wasambaze nyasi za kisasa wafugaji wasivamie mapori,wawe na nyasi zao,ujenzi uwe vertical,sio horizontal,dsm isingeikaribia kibaha,upimaji,watu hawana hati-hawana mipaka-mgogoro

wananchi wanakimbia kimaendeleo kulïko serikali inavyoweza kuhudumia maendeleñ yao,watu wa takwimu-ardhi-wapanga sera-wapanga bajeti hawana forecast

 

[Kindeena]

NEVER!
soma hii kutoka fb attorneys!

Change of right of occupancy​

My farm is located in Maghanga village, Mbulu District, and has a customary right of occupancy which was obtained after we executed an agreement with the village council in 1997. The area is not surveyed because it is still remote from the district area. To enable me effectively secure my right of occupancy should I change my customary right of occupancy to a certificate of title? What process should I follow to enable this change?
GP, Mbulu
There are two kinds of right of occupancies namely the granted right of occupancy and the customary right of occupancy (deemed right of occupancy). The deemed right of occupancy is granted by the Village Council because all of the village land is vested under the Village Council.
It must be noted that under the eyes of the law, both rights of occupancies have equal status and neither is better or superior to the other. Bearing the equal status of the two in mind, there is no need for you to change your customary right of occupancy to a granted right of occupancy. You also cannot own a granted right of occupancy in an area which is under the village council.
Should the President transfer the village land to general land for public interest, the occupiers will be paid compensation for unexhausted improvements equal to the compensation that would have been paid when general land is acquired by the government for public interest.
If the land is transferred to general land under the order of the President and the occupiers are permitted to continue with occupation of the land, you can then apply for the granted right of occupancy on the said land because it will no longer be under the village council.
Previously the Village Council did not issue certificates to owners of the customary right of occupancy but recently owners of customary right of occupancy can acquire certificates of title from the village council. You may want to apply for this certificate.



In the case of Attorney General v Lohay Akonaay and Joseph Lohay[14] the respondents, father and son, had acquired land rights under customary law recognized as deemed rights of occupancy under section 2 of the Land Ordinance (Cap.113) over 20 acres in Mbulu District, Arusha Region, which they had cleared in 1943. They occupied and used the land until they were dispossessed during 'Operation Vijiji' under the Villages and Ujamaa Villages Act, 1975. They successefully sued for the recovery of that land and regained possession of it in 1990 under a Court decree. An appeal against that judgment was still pending in High Court when the Regulation of Land Tenure (Established Villages) Act, 1992, was passed. The effect of this Act was to extinguish customary rights in land acquired before 'operation Vijiji' in 'an established village', to prohibit the right to compensation for such extinction, to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, terminate relevant court proceedings and prohibit the enforcement of any relevant court decision. Proceedings under the 1992 Act were to be instituted only in local land tribunals. The respondents then petitioned the High Court alleging breaches of their fundamental rights and obtained a declaration from the High Court that the 1992 Act was invalid for inconsistency with the Constitution in that its provisions violated the petitioners' rights of equality before the law, of freedom from deprivation of property without fair compensation, and of access to the courts to protect their rights.
The Court ordered the offending Act to be struck out of the statute book. The Attorney General appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that these holdings were erroneous, that customary land rights were not forms of property protected by the Constitution and that although certain sections of the 1992 Act violated the Constitution the whole Act could not be invalidated on that ground alone.
The Court said that “the historical background shows that the overriding legal concern of the British authorities, no doubt under the influence of the Mandate of the League of Nations and subsequently of the Trusteeship Council, with regard to land, was to safeguard, protect, and not to derogate from, the rights in land of the indigenous inhabitants. This is apparent in the Preamble to what was then known as the Land Tenure Ordinance, Cap 113 which came into force on 26 January, 1923. The Preamble reads:
'Whereas it is expedient that the existing customary rights of the natives of the Tanganyika Territory to use and enjoy the land of the Territory and the natural fruits thereof in sufficient quantity to enable them to provide for the sustenance of themselves their families and their posterity should be assured, protected and preserved;
And whereas it is expedient that the rights and obligations of the Government in regard to the whole of the lands within the Territory and also the rights and obligations of cultivators or other persons claiming to have an interest in such lands should be defined by law. Be it therefore enacted by the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Tanganyika Territory as follows....' ”

The Court of Appeal held inter alia that;
… customary or deemed rights in land, though by their nature are nothing but rights to occupy and use the land, are nevertheless real property protected by the provisions of art 24 of the Constitution. It follows therefore that deprivation of a customary or deemed right of occupancy without fair compensation is prohibited by the Constitution. The prohibition of course extends to a granted right of occupancy. What is fair compensation depends on the circumstances of each case. In some cases a reallocation of land may be fair compensation.Fair compensation however is not confined to what is known in law as unexhausted improvements. Obviously where there are unexhausted improvements, the constitution as well as the ordinary land law requires fair compensation to be paid for its deprivation. Where there are no unexhausted improvements, but some effort has been put into the land by the occupier, that occupier is entitled to protection under Article 24(2) of the Constitution and fair compensation is payable for deprivation of property…the section of the law that purported to exclude access to the courts was unconstitutional.
Generally, both Customary Right of occupancy and Granted Right of Occupancy are considered the same by the law, this can be proved by the provision as per section 18(1) of the Village Land Act no 5 cap 114 of 1999, which provide that, customary right of occupancy have all respect the same as granted right of occupancy.

Hiyo aya ya mwisho ni maandishi tu ila hati miliki ya kimila haina uwiano na hati miliki ya kiserikali.

Soma kifungu cha 181 cha sheria ya ardhi.

Halafu ongeza na hayo maelezo halo juu

 

[Retired]

Hiyo aya ya mwisho ni maandishi tu ila hati miliki ya kimila haina uwiano na hati miliki ya kiserikali.

Soma kifungu cha 181 cha sheria ya ardhi.

Halafu ongeza na hayo maelezo halo juu

sioni hilo unalolisema!
181.-(1)Subject to the provisions of the constitution and this Act, the law to be applied by the courts in implementing, interpreting and applying this act and determining disputes about land arising under this act or any other written law shall be- (a) the customary laws of Tanzania; and (b) the substance of the common law and the doctrines of equity as applied from time to time in any other countries of the commonwealth which appear to the courts to be relevant to the circumstances of Tanzania. (2)On and after the date of the coming into operation of this Act no statutes of general application in force in England day of July 1920 which have not ,at the date of the coming into operation of this act, been declared by a court to be a part of the law of Tanzania shall apply in any way to any matter connected with land. (3)On and after the commencement of this Act, it shall be the duty of all courts in interpreting and applying this act and all other laws relating to land in Tanzania to use their best endeavours to create a common law of Tanzania applicable in equal measure to all land and to this end the courts shall apply a purposive interpretation to this act and shall at all times be guided by the fundamental principles of land policy set out in section 3.

 

[ISIS]

Umasikini ndio shida kubwa walahi
Mwenye Enzi Mungu tunakuomba utuondolee laana ya umaskini walahi uwiii


Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[Kindeena]

sioni hilo unalolisema!
181.-(1)Subject to the provisions of the constitution and this Act, the law to be applied by the courts in implementing, interpreting and applying this act and determining disputes about land arising under this act or any other written law shall be- (a) the customary laws of Tanzania; and (b) the substance of the common law and the doctrines of equity as applied from time to time in any other countries of the commonwealth which appear to the courts to be relevant to the circumstances of Tanzania. (2)On and after the date of the coming into operation of this Act no statutes of general application in force in England day of July 1920 which have not ,at the date of the coming into operation of this act, been declared by a court to be a part of the law of Tanzania shall apply in any way to any matter connected with land. (3)On and after the commencement of this Act, it shall be the duty of all courts in interpreting and applying this act and all other laws relating to land in Tanzania to use their best endeavours to create a common law of Tanzania applicable in equal measure to all land and to this end the courts shall apply a purposive interpretation to this act and shall at all times be guided by the fundamental principles of land policy set out in section 3.

Ni kifungu cha 180. Nilikosea

 

[Retired]

Ni kifungu cha 180. Nilikosea

No uko swa kabisa ila kuna hii sentence, According to section 181 of the Land Act… any provisions of any other written law applicable to land which conflict, or are inconsistent with any of the provision of this Act shall to the extent of that conflict or that inconsistency cease to be applicable to land or any matter connected with land in Mainland Tanzania.
Kwa ishu ya GRO and CRO court imeshaliweka sawa kuwa zote ziko sawa

 

[Kindeena]

No uko swa kabisa ila kuna hii sentence, According to section 181 of the Land Act… any provisions of any other written law applicable to land which conflict, or are inconsistent with any of the provision of this Act shall to the extent of that conflict or that inconsistency cease to be applicable to land or any matter connected with land in Mainland Tanzania.
Kwa ishu ya GRO and CRO court imeshaliweka sawa kuwa zote ziko sawa

Kama sawa, mbona CRO inakuwa revoked kupisha GRO?

Na kama zipo sawa, mbona hakuna revocation ya GRO na kupisha CRO?

 

[Lihove2]

NEVER!
soma hii kutoka fb attorneys!

Change of right of occupancy​

My farm is located in Maghanga village, Mbulu District, and has a customary right of occupancy which was obtained after we executed an agreement with the village council in 1997. The area is not surveyed because it is still remote from the district area. To enable me effectively secure my right of occupancy should I change my customary right of occupancy to a certificate of title? What process should I follow to enable this change?
GP, Mbulu
There are two kinds of right of occupancies namely the granted right of occupancy and the customary right of occupancy (deemed right of occupancy). The deemed right of occupancy is granted by the Village Council because all of the village land is vested under the Village Council.
It must be noted that under the eyes of the law, both rights of occupancies have equal status and neither is better or superior to the other. Bearing the equal status of the two in mind, there is no need for you to change your customary right of occupancy to a granted right of occupancy. You also cannot own a granted right of occupancy in an area which is under the village council.
Should the President transfer the village land to general land for public interest, the occupiers will be paid compensation for unexhausted improvements equal to the compensation that would have been paid when general land is acquired by the government for public interest.
If the land is transferred to general land under the order of the President and the occupiers are permitted to continue with occupation of the land, you can then apply for the granted right of occupancy on the said land because it will no longer be under the village council.
Previously the Village Council did not issue certificates to owners of the customary right of occupancy but recently owners of customary right of occupancy can acquire certificates of title from the village council. You may want to apply for this certificate.



In the case of Attorney General v Lohay Akonaay and Joseph Lohay[14] the respondents, father and son, had acquired land rights under customary law recognized as deemed rights of occupancy under section 2 of the Land Ordinance (Cap.113) over 20 acres in Mbulu District, Arusha Region, which they had cleared in 1943. They occupied and used the land until they were dispossessed during 'Operation Vijiji' under the Villages and Ujamaa Villages Act, 1975. They successefully sued for the recovery of that land and regained possession of it in 1990 under a Court decree. An appeal against that judgment was still pending in High Court when the Regulation of Land Tenure (Established Villages) Act, 1992, was passed. The effect of this Act was to extinguish customary rights in land acquired before 'operation Vijiji' in 'an established village', to prohibit the right to compensation for such extinction, to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, terminate relevant court proceedings and prohibit the enforcement of any relevant court decision. Proceedings under the 1992 Act were to be instituted only in local land tribunals. The respondents then petitioned the High Court alleging breaches of their fundamental rights and obtained a declaration from the High Court that the 1992 Act was invalid for inconsistency with the Constitution in that its provisions violated the petitioners' rights of equality before the law, of freedom from deprivation of property without fair compensation, and of access to the courts to protect their rights.
The Court ordered the offending Act to be struck out of the statute book. The Attorney General appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that these holdings were erroneous, that customary land rights were not forms of property protected by the Constitution and that although certain sections of the 1992 Act violated the Constitution the whole Act could not be invalidated on that ground alone.
The Court said that “the historical background shows that the overriding legal concern of the British authorities, no doubt under the influence of the Mandate of the League of Nations and subsequently of the Trusteeship Council, with regard to land, was to safeguard, protect, and not to derogate from, the rights in land of the indigenous inhabitants. This is apparent in the Preamble to what was then known as the Land Tenure Ordinance, Cap 113 which came into force on 26 January, 1923. The Preamble reads:
'Whereas it is expedient that the existing customary rights of the natives of the Tanganyika Territory to use and enjoy the land of the Territory and the natural fruits thereof in sufficient quantity to enable them to provide for the sustenance of themselves their families and their posterity should be assured, protected and preserved;
And whereas it is expedient that the rights and obligations of the Government in regard to the whole of the lands within the Territory and also the rights and obligations of cultivators or other persons claiming to have an interest in such lands should be defined by law. Be it therefore enacted by the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Tanganyika Territory as follows....' ”

The Court of Appeal held inter alia that;
… customary or deemed rights in land, though by their nature are nothing but rights to occupy and use the land, are nevertheless real property protected by the provisions of art 24 of the Constitution. It follows therefore that deprivation of a customary or deemed right of occupancy without fair compensation is prohibited by the Constitution. The prohibition of course extends to a granted right of occupancy. What is fair compensation depends on the circumstances of each case. In some cases a reallocation of land may be fair compensation.Fair compensation however is not confined to what is known in law as unexhausted improvements. Obviously where there are unexhausted improvements, the constitution as well as the ordinary land law requires fair compensation to be paid for its deprivation. Where there are no unexhausted improvements, but some effort has been put into the land by the occupier, that occupier is entitled to protection under Article 24(2) of the Constitution and fair compensation is payable for deprivation of property…the section of the law that purported to exclude access to the courts was unconstitutional.
Generally, both Customary Right of occupancy and Granted Right of Occupancy are considered the same by the law, this can be proved by the provision as per section 18(1) of the Village Land Act no 5 cap 114 of 1999, which provide that, customary right of occupancy have all respect the same as granted right of occupancy.

Aliyeelewa atoe summary.

sometimes tujifunze kumarize taarifa za mhimu.inaonekana umeandika vitu vya maana ila umeamua kwa makisudi kutufanya tusikupate. siyo lugha tuu bali urefu

 

[Kindeena]

No uko swa kabisa ila kuna hii sentence, According to section 181 of the Land Act… any provisions of any other written law applicable to land which conflict, or are inconsistent with any of the provision of this Act shall to the extent of that conflict or that inconsistency cease to be applicable to land or any matter connected with land in Mainland Tanzania.
Kwa ishu ya GRO and CRO court imeshaliweka sawa kuwa zote ziko sawa

Hiyo sentensi nimeshaitolea maelezo, kwamba, Sheria ya ardhi ya Kijiji inatoa hati za kimila, huku Sheria ya ardhi inaratibu granted right of occupancy. Iko hivi, mfano, eneo moja mtu akapewa hati ya kimila kwa mujibu was Sheria ya Kijiji, then akaja mtu anataka ile ardhi ili kuwekeza, na ikatumika sheria ya ardhi maana yake ni kwamba sheria zimegongana, conflict. Kifuatacho Sheria ya ardhi itatumika pale na sheria ya ardhi ya Kijiji itasitishwa.

Ninadhani umenipata.

Cc cariha

 

[Lihove2]

Wadau hakika Migogoro ya Ardhi nchini imekuwa ni kero kubwa.Nimekuwa najiuliza hivi tatizo linalofanya Migogoro hii isimalizike au kupungua nini? Je tatizo ni Sheria zilizopo, Watendaji wa sekta ya Ardhi au Wananchi?

Mkuu RUSHWA! RUSHWA ! RUSHWA!
Ndiyo sababu kubwa.ngoja nikupe mfano

Hapo mkuranga maeneo ya Kimanzichana kijiji cha Matanzi kuna wafugaji wamasai pia kuna wakulima kwenye bonde moja hapo karibu.Ngombe waliingia kwa shamba la mwanajeshi mstaafu wakaharibu shamba lake akakamata ngombe 14 akapeleka serikali ya kijiji. wakaja wale wafugaji wakasema wale siyo ngombe wake.serikali ya kijiji ikamuachia yule mjeshi alinde ngombe hao mwenyewe. kundi kubws la wamasai wakaja usiku wakachukua kwa nguvu wale ngombe wote.Kesho yake asubuhi wakaja tena wale wamasai wanataka kugomboa ng'ombe wao kwamba wako tayari kulipa faini. Mjeshi anasema mbona mlikuja usiku kuchukua ng'ombe.Wamasai wakakataa kwamba siyo wao

Wakamtupa ndani mjeshi mstaafu.wanadai fidia ya ng'ombe 14 jumla sh.24milion.sasa jamaa alikosa ushirikiano kuanzia serikali ya kijiji mpaka polisi.sasa tukawa tunajiuliza ni nini chanzo.tukaambiwa wale wamasai wanafuga pia ng'ombe wa mkuu wa police mkuranga.mkurugenzi mtendaji wa mkuranga na afisa upelelezi na maofisa wengine wa juu wa halmashauri ya wilaya ya Mkuranga .kwa hiyo ukikamata ngombe wa mmsai unakuwa partly umekamata ngombe wa hao vigogo ambao ndiyo utakao wapelekea kesi.kwa hiyo ngazi zote za chini ukipeleka shauri lako la kwamba umelishiwa ngombe katika shamba lako utaambulia danadana tu hakuna hatua wala msaada kuanzia ngazi ya serakli ya kijiji

Yule mjeshi mstaafu amejuta kwa nini aliamua kuanza shughuli ya kilimo. amekaa ndani wee badaye mahakamani ndiyo kesi inaendlea anadaiwa fidia ya sh 24milioni.

so unadhani kwa hali hii migogoro itaisha kweli zaidi ya visasi