On challenging the protocol decision of the Land Commission
No. 6001-24-00-6ap/3262 dated April 15, 2025
Plaintiff: T.A.
The defendant: akim of the district
Interested party: State Institution "Department of Land Relations of the district"
(OZO)
Subject of dispute: on challenging the protocol decision of the Land Commission
Review of the plaintiff's cassation complaint PLOT:
On March 29, 2024, a notice was published in the district public newspaper, as well as on the Internet resource of the akimat of the district, on holding a tender for granting the right of temporary paid land use (lease) for farming or agricultural production in a rural district on a land plot (545 ha) with the intended purpose of "pastures".
4 applications were submitted for this lot, of which two participants were identified with the highest number of points: T.A. and R.T.
By the protocol decision of the Land Commission dated May 24, 2024, R.T. was recognized as the winner.
The plaintiff, disagreeing with the protocol decision, appealed to the court with the above-mentioned claim, arguing that the defendant violated the norms of land legislation.
Judicial acts:
I am the authority: the claim was denied.
Appeal: the decision of the court of first instance remains unchanged.
Cassation: judicial acts in this case are upheld.
Conclusions: the refusal of the SMAS claim was justified by the fact that:
from the text of the protocol decision dated May 24, 2024, it follows that during the competition for the disputed lot, 11 people participated in the meeting of the land commission, 6 votes were cast in an open vote, and the document itself was signed by 11 members, which is two-thirds of the total number of the commission (13:3x2 = 9);
No violations of the requirements of the land legislation have been established from the audio-video recordings of the contested competition. The members of the land commission discussed each participant and the documents they submitted, while lobbying for anyone's interests was not visible.;
There is an appendix to the protocol decision of the Land Commission dated May 24, 2024, which contains information on the evaluation of applications by assigning points for the projected investment volume on May 24, 2024 and a table for determining the winner of the competition by open voting. Of the four participants in the disputed lot, the most points were awarded to two participants: T.A. (30 points) and R.T. (30 points), the other two participants received 20 points each.;
T.A. and R.T. were awarded an additional 10 points each as persons who have lived in the district for more than 5 years, and the bids of these persons scored equal points in terms of the proposed volume of attracted investments. In this regard, the arguments of the plaintiff's representative about the absence of information in the protocol decision of the land commission about how the points were calculated and from what conclusions this commission proceeded are not accepted.;
The plaintiff's representative does not deny the fact that the meeting of the land commission was held online on the Facebook page of the social network (on the page of the Department of Land Relations), therefore, the requirements of the Rules for the technical use of audio and video recording equipment to record the course of the meeting of the land commission were not violated.;
The arguments of the plaintiff's representative regarding the inconsistency of the R.T. tender offer are untenable. the requirements of part 9 of Article 43-1 of the Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as it complies with and contains all the necessary documents, including the obligation to conclude a temporary paid land use (lease) agreement for agricultural land for farming or agricultural production within three working days from the date of receipt of notification of the need to sign the said agreement. if the applicant is recognized as the winner of the competition.
Thus, the court of first instance came to the correct conclusion that the protocol decision of the land commission disputed by the plaintiff was lawful and justified.
The Court of Appeal fully agreed with the position of the SMAS.
Having checked the conclusions of the courts and their legal reasoning, the judicial board considered that they fully correspond to the circumstances of the case and the norms of industry and procedural legislation to be applied in this case, therefore, the judicial acts appealed by the plaintiff-cassator were rendered lawfully and reasonably.
Considering the above, there is no need to further substantiate the conclusions of the courts, since the judicial board agreed with them. The courts clarified the circumstances of the dispute to the extent sufficient for its legal resolution, and correctly and reasonably applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. In this regard, there are no legal grounds for the cancellation or amendment of the judicial acts appealed by the cassator, as well as there are no grounds for satisfying his cassation appeal.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
