Recently, news reports have reflected developments in the incident of a house being built on someone else’s land in Hai Phong. Hundreds of feedback comments and shares have been posted under articles about this case.
Many opinions questioned: Where were the authorities, public order officials, and land management when the house was built incorrectly? Was it a mistake or intentional?…
Just pouring a pile of sand for construction should prompt urban officials to inspect
One reader exclaimed “unbelievable” that such a mistaken construction could happen. Because when building a house, there must be blueprints, urban ward officials must come to survey and measure. The landowner must sign a report on the blueprint along with adjacent households…
“Is this a situation that shows laxity in land management and a lack of inspection and supervision from the authorities?”, another reader raised the question.
According to other opinions, completing a house on someone else’s land is very irrational because land and construction are managed by many relevant agencies, from the commune-level authorities to the functional departments and divisions of the old district level.
One reader asked whether the authorities knew when people started building the wrong house and answered themselves, “just putting down a small pile of sand for building is enough for someone to come and ask.”
Sharing this view, another reader argued: “It’s very illogical; just pouring a pile of sand should already have urban order staff coming to inspect. There’s no way a house could be completed without the locality knowing.”
Another reader pointed out bluntly that the incident involved building a house, not a shack. “Yet here, they built incorrectly on someone else’s land like this,” another reader commented.
Furthermore, building a house “requires blueprints, ownership papers, and inspection before a construction permit is issued. During construction, functional agency staff conduct regular inspections. And upon completion, the construction items must be checked for compliance with the permit,” the reader pointed out.
Many readers suggested the need to clarify construction management responsibilities. One reader argued that besides considering whether the actions of those who built on the wrong land were intentional or unintentional, “it is necessary to additionally consider the responsibility of the relevant units during the construction period.”
Another reader agreed, stating that the responsibility of the local authorities for allowing the construction to continue should be examined. If they had acted decisively from the beginning, it would not have led to the current complex, prolonged petitioning situation.
A mechanism is needed to resolve disputes in similar cases
Most reader opinions concluded that the case of building on someone else’s land mentioned above was intentional, because when the foundation was poured, the actual landowner had informed the builder. But they still continued building until completion.
Another reader analyzed more carefully, stating that no legitimate construction project begins without requiring the land administration agency to come and set boundary markers.
Only those who intentionally circumvent the law would organize construction without applying for a permit.
“It’s hard to believe this was a mistake; it could be an intentional violation of another person’s land use rights, followed by a demand for the legitimate owner to exchange land positions from one value to another.
Will the builder compensate the landowner for the long-term damages?”, this reader raised the issue.
Consequently, many people argued that the site should be restored to its original condition.
One reader believed the above case constituted illegal construction. Based on that alone, the authorities could have already dismantled it; why wait for a court decision?
Regarding the proposed solution of hiring specialists to relocate the house to the correct plot belonging to the person who built it mistakenly, some readers supported it as a way to minimize losses for all parties. “The option of relocation instead of demolition is an extremely humane and cost-saving solution,” one reader welcomed.
However, some opinions held that even if the two parties agree on relocation, “we still hope for legal penalties. The landowner warned them when construction started, but they persisted. We hope this case is properly adjudicated to deter others,” one reader wrote.
Another reader thought that successful mediation and hiring “specialists” to move the house was one solution. But in the long term, a clear mechanism is needed to definitively resolve similar disputes, avoiding prolonged damage to both sides.
Tam Thang Ward has just publicly
