A destroyed structure in Chernihiv region was registered as a house to obtain land: what the Supreme Court decided

Real estate registration often becomes the starting point for acquiring land rights. That is why errors or abuses during the registration of real estate objects can affect not only the rights of individual owners but also the ability of territorial communities to manage communal lands.

In the ruling dated May 22, 2026, in case No. 203/7210/23, the Supreme Court's Civil Cassation Chamber considered a dispute regarding the registration of a residential house formed by combining apartments and the subsequent registration of the land plot beneath it. The court had to determine whether a person can acquire land rights through the registration of an object that does not actually exist as a residential house.

Circumstances of the case

In November 2023, the Dnipro City Council filed a lawsuit against the owner of the apartments, the Department of Administrative Services and Permitting Procedures of the Dnipro City Council, and the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Chernihiv region.

The city council stated that after purchasing four apartments in an old building, the defendant registered ownership rights to an allegedly newly created individual residential house by combining them. Subsequently, based on this registration, a land plot of 0.0964 hectares with cadastral number 1210100000:06:081:0083 was formed.

The plaintiff argued that the building was actually destroyed, unfit for habitation, lacked a roof and internal isolated premises, and no construction work for reconstruction or apartment combination had been carried out.

According to the city council, the state registration of ownership rights to the residential house was carried out based on false documents, which later allowed the formation of a communal land plot without conducting land auctions and contrary to urban planning restrictions of the city's historic area.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, terminated the ownership rights to the residential house, canceled the registrar's decision, and annulled the land plot registration. The appellate court upheld this decision.

Disagreeing with these conclusions, the defendant filed a cassation appeal, referring, among other things, to the absence of violation of the city council's interests, unproven fact of building destruction, and the legality of the registration actions performed.

Position of the Supreme Court

The court reminded that ownership rights and other real rights to immovable property, restrictions of these rights, their emergence, transfer, and termination are subject to state registration. State registration of rights to real estate and transactions concerning real estate is public, carried out by the relevant authority obliged to provide information about registration and registered rights in the manner prescribed by law (Article 182 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).

Ownership rights are considered lawfully acquired unless otherwise directly provided by law or the illegality of acquiring ownership rights or the unreasonableness of assets held in ownership is established by the court. The owner cannot use ownership rights to the detriment of the rights, freedoms, and dignity of citizens, societal interests, or worsen the ecological situation and natural qualities of the land.

The court emphasized that lands owned by territorial communities are communal property.

The Supreme Court agreed with the previous courts' decisions that since the disputed land plot contains a destroyed building without a roof and internal isolated premises, which according to Articles 380 and 382 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is considered destroyed, the defendant deliberately misled the state registrar by submitting a false technical passport about the fictitious combination of previously destroyed apartments into one individual residential house, and took actions to form a land plot in the State Land Cadastre based on technical documentation without the mandatory permission of the city council, aiming to unlawfully acquire the land free of charge bypassing its purchase at land auctions.

Therefore, the court agreed that such actions violated public order and the legitimate interests of the territorial community, which justified terminating ownership rights to a non-existent object, canceling the registrar's decision, and annulling the land plot registration.

The Supreme Court noted that the evidence in the case (including inspection reports and photographs of the object's condition) reliably confirmed the critical emergency condition of the disputed real estate object even before 2020, so the registration case materials could not refute the illegality of the ownership registration by the plaintiff of the disputed object or affect the correctness of the dispute's substantive resolution.

The court separately rejected the cassation applicant's arguments regarding the absence of violation of the Dnipro City Council's interests.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the defendant's arguments about the absence of violation of the city council's interests, pointing out that the registration of a practically non-existent house created grounds for the registration of communal land bypassing legally established procedures.

Performing registration actions regarding a non-existent real estate object with unlawful opening of the section created an artificial ownership title, which, according to the principle of unity of the legal fate of land and building, deprived the territorial community of the right to manage its land.

Thus, the plaintiff, as a representative of the territorial community of the city of Dnipro, proved the existence of a legally protected interest in restoring the lawful state of information regarding the disputed real estate object in the State Register of Property Rights to Immovable Property and removing obstacles to the civil circulation of this property, including by canceling the illegal decision of the state registrar.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances about the illegality of state registration of ownership rights to a residential house that in fact did not exist as a residential real estate object.

The court concluded that ownership rights cannot be registered for an object that does not actually exist as a residential house. For law enforcement practice, this position is important because it prevents the use of formal real estate registration as a basis for obtaining rights to communal land.

We also suggest reviewing the material from the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper", which analyzes the current practice of the Supreme Court's Civil Cassation Court regarding the use of land plots without properly executed documents, as well as the impact of psychological pressure on the validity of concluded transactions.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and Instagram Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.