State ownership of land and its main types

Home / Real estate / Land / Ownership / Forms of ownership

Back

Published: 06/07/2017

Reading time: 11 min

773

Land ownership is one of the main economic and legal categories in Russian legislation. Land can belong not only to citizens privately, but also to the state as a whole. The features of state lands will be discussed further in the article.

What is state ownership of land and what areas does it apply to?
Types of state lands Federal property
Regional property
Municipal property

Grounds for the emergence of state ownership of land

Subjects and objects of state ownership of land

How land plots are formed from state-owned lands

Procedure and features of transfer of land from federal to municipal ownership

What is state ownership of land and what areas does it apply to?

As can be seen from the very name of this category, this is the state’s ownership of land plots, owned by state and municipal bodies.

State ownership of land is divided into several levels of government; this will be discussed in detail later in the article.

In general terms, we can say that state ownership extends to all those land plots that have not been transferred into private ownership by citizens or organizations.

In addition, there is the concept of lands that are withdrawn from circulation and limited in circulation. Due to their special status, they cannot be transferred into “private hands” and therefore belong strictly to the state.

Forms of ownership

One of the defining elements of the structure of the economic system is public socio-economic relations, and their basis is the dominant form of ownership.

Property is a historically determined form of appropriation of material goods by economic units. If we conduct a more thorough analysis of the content of property, then the legal and economic aspects, which are closely interrelated, come to the fore.

Property, being an economic category, shows the objectively developing relationships between people regarding the appropriation of the means of production.

Are you an expert in this subject area? We invite you to become the author of the Directory Working Conditions

Property, being a legal category, reflects, in accordance with current legislation, all the property rights of people in society.

Property is divided into private, public and other. Figure 1 provides a more detailed classification of property.

Figure 1. Property classification. Author24 - online exchange of student work

Types of public lands

Due to the fact that our entire state is divided into constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and each subject into municipalities, ownership of land plots was also divided according to this principle.

Lists of lands assigned to three levels of government are contained in the Land Code of the Russian Federation.

Each type of property will be discussed below.

Federal property

This includes the following lands:

areas on which buildings (or structures) are erected that are owned by federal authorities and their structures;
land plots provided to government agencies and their representative offices, as well as state-owned enterprises, for the implementation of their activities;
plots of land that are permanently used by the Academies of Sciences and its divisions (this rule applies if the land was transferred before the acts regulating the activities of such institutions came into force);
territories of land leased to the Russian Highways enterprise by an authorized authority.

Regional property

This type of ownership arises if land plots are transferred from a higher level to the disposal of the authorities of the corresponding subject of the Russian Federation.

These may be the following types of plots.

Those lands on which real estate objects are located, owned by regional authorities on the right of ownership.
Territories transferred from the federal level to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, since enterprises or non-profit organizations formed at the regional level are located on them.
Land plots that are classified as agricultural lands.
Areas occupied by roads, communications and plantings, as well as water bodies in order to protect them from negative impacts. This rule does not apply to those lands that have the same status, but are already privately owned by individuals, or by federations or municipalities.

Land can also be transferred from federal ownership to the ownership of federal cities. There are three of them in the country: Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sevastopol.

Such transfer is carried out on the basis of both regional and federal norms, since the status of such lands is of a border nature.

Municipal property

Due to the fact that the municipal branch of government does not belong to the state branch and exists, so to speak, separately from everyone else, it is assigned its own lands. This right of municipalities is undeniable; it is established by special laws.

When delineating state ownership of land objects, the following areas fall under the control of local authorities:

on which there are buildings (or structures) owned by municipalities;
those transferred to local authorities, municipal enterprises or non-profit structures created at the municipal level.

Article 214. Right of state property

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 11, 2019 N 306-ES19-3030 in case N A72-17027/2017 Having examined and assessed the evidence presented according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Ulyanovsk Region dated 08/30/2016 in case No. A72-3935/2016, as well as the water filling station lease agreements presented by the defendant, concluded between the municipal unitary enterprise "Ulyanovskdorremstroy" and the municipal budgetary institution "Dorremstroy", guided by articles 195, 196, 199, 200, 214, 215, 299, 395 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, clarifications contained in paragraph 5 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N /22 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights”, they reasonably came to the conclusion that after 02/13/2014 the water filling station was owned and actually used by the land plot with cadastral number 73:24:041414:42 without the grounds established by law, MBU “Dorremstroy”, in connection with which it unjust enrichment has arisen, subject to recovery for the period from 10/18/2014 to 11/10/2016 in the amount of RUB 106,583.94.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 11, 2019 N 310-ES19-17469 in case N A23-4122/2018

The courts of the first and appellate instances, having examined and assessed, according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the evidence presented in the case materials, guided by Articles 198, 200, 201 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 125, 209, 214, 215, 294 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 23.3, 26.11 Federal Law of 06.10.1999 N 184-FZ “On the general principles of organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 184-FZ), articles 35, 51 of Federal Law of 06.10.2003 N 131 -FZ “On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation”, Article 154 of the Federal Law of August 22, 2004 N 122-FZ “On Amendments to Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation and the Revocation of Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in Connection with the Adoption of Federal Laws” “On introducing amendments and additions to the Federal Law “On the general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” and “On the general principles of the organization of local self-government in the Russian Federation”, Law of the Kaluga Region dated 04/07/2003 N 192- OZ “On the management and disposal of state property of the Kaluga Region”, the Charter of the municipal formation “Urban settlement “City of Kirov”, approved by the decision of the Duma dated 01.12.2005 N 27, Regulations on the procedure for management and disposal of property in the municipal property of the urban settlement “City of Kirov” ", approved by the decision of the Duma of December 17, 2015 N 28, taking into account the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, set out in the resolution of June 30, 2006 N 8-P and determinations of December 7, 2006 N 542-O, of December 4, 2007 N 828- O-P, dated November 2, 2006 N 540-O, of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, given in the ruling dated July 30, 2017 N 303-KG17-4054, came to the conclusion that there are no grounds to satisfy the Company’s requirements.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 15, 2019 N 301-ES19-17778 in case N A11-9251/2018

When resolving the stated claims, the courts, guided by the provisions of Articles 198 and 200 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 39.1, 39.2, paragraph 1 of Article 39.3, paragraph 5 of Article 39.17 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 125 and 214 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraphs 1 and 4 Regulations on the Federal Agency for State Property Management, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/2008 N 432, paragraphs 4 and 4.1.20, 4.2.27 of the Model Regulations on the territorial body (interregional territorial body) of the Federal Agency for State Property Management, approved by order The Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated November 1, 2008 N 374, having examined and assessed in aggregate the evidence available in the case materials, in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, having established that the department, being the authorized body for considering applications from a company for the provision of ownership of land plots, did not make a reasoned decision to provide or refuse to provide land plots, and therefore violated the rights and legitimate interests of the company to acquire them, came to the conclusion that there were legal grounds to satisfy the stated requirements of the company.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 22, 2019 N 308-ES19-18372 in case N A32-19912/2018

Canceling the decision of the court of first instance in part and accepting the appealed judicial act, the appellate court, guided by the provisions of Articles 212, 214 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 2 of the resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 1991 N 3020-1 “On the delimitation of state property in the Russian Federation” Federation on federal property, state property of republics within the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous regions, autonomous districts, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and municipal property", Article 14 of the Federal Law of October 6, 2003 N 131-FZ "On General Principles organizations of local self-government in the Russian Federation", paragraphs 5, 9 - 11 of paragraph 11 of Article 154 of the Federal Law of August 22, 2004 N 122-FZ "On amendments to legislative acts of the Russian Federation and the recognition as invalid of certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in connection with the adoption Federal Laws “On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law “On General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation” and “On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation”, paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the Charter, adopted by decision Council of the Voznesensky rural settlement of the Labinsky district dated 05/03/2017 N 136/39, the explanations set out in paragraph 5 of the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/11/1997 N “Review of the practice of resolving disputes related to the privatization of state and municipal enterprises”, having examined and having assessed, in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the evidence presented in the case, establishing that the disputed objects relate to the engineering infrastructure with the help of which the settlement is supplied with communal resources, are objects of public use and represent an integral part of the municipal water supply (sewage) complex in the settlement, ensuring the solution of problems that are not within the competence of the State Budgetary Educational Institution of the CC VTPP, came to the conclusion that the disputed objects must be transferred to municipal ownership by force of law and the procedure for obtaining consent from the administration of a rural settlement for such acceptance is not provided for by law.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 6, 2019 N 308-ES19-19454 in case N A32-1179/2017

The courts of the first and appellate instances, having examined and assessed, according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the evidence presented in the case materials, guided by Articles 166, 168, 214, 301, 302, 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Part 11 of Article 154 of the Federal Law of August 22, 2004 N 122-FZ “On amendments to the legislative acts of the Russian Federation and the recognition of some legislative acts of the Russian Federation as invalid in connection with the adoption of federal laws “On amendments and additions to the Federal Law “On general principles of organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation" and "On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation", Article 18 of the Federal Law of September 27, 2013 N 253-FZ "On the Russian Academy of Sciences, reorganization of state academies of sciences and amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation" , Regulations on the Federal Agency for State Property Management, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated June 5, 2008 N 432, Regulations on the Federal Agency of Scientific Organizations approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 25, 2013 N 959, explanations given in paragraphs 2, 32, 36 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N /22 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights”, paragraph 75 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme The courts of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2015 N “On the application by courts of certain provisions of Section I, Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation,” came to the conclusion that the claim was justified in part.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 8, 2019 N 309-ES19-20708 in case N A76-31532/2018

Considering the dispute, the court of first instance, having assessed the evidence presented in the case file, having established the fact of payment by the company for property acquired under a contract for the sale and purchase of non-residential premises, guided by the provisions of Articles 158, 242.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 125, 166, 167, 214, 395 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Regulations on the Federal Agency for State Property Management, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated June 5, 2008 N 432, Model Regulations on the territorial body of the Federal Property Management Agency, approved by Order of the Ministry of Economic Development dated November 1, 2008 N 374, came to the conclusion that there are legal grounds to satisfy the claim and collected from the Russian Federation, represented by the administration, at the expense of the treasury of the Russian Federation in favor of the company, debt and interest for the use of other people's funds in the declared amount.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 13, 2019 N 308-ES19-16651 in case N A32-8126/2018

When reconsidering the case, the court of first instance, referring to Articles 212, 214 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 19, 92 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 14, 50 of the Federal Law of October 6, 2003 N 131-FZ “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in Russian Federation", Article 154 of the Federal Law of August 22, 2004 N 122-FZ "On Amendments to Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation and Recognition of Some Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation as Invalid in Connection with the Adoption of Federal Laws "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law" On the general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation" and "On the general principles of the organization of local self-government in the Russian Federation" (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 122-FZ), Articles 4 and 6 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991 N 1541-I “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 1541-I), resolution N 3020-1, came to the conclusion that the Department’s claim was justified.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 21, 2019 N 305-ES18-23756 in case N A41-15742/2018

The courts of the first and appellate instances, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case materials according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, guided by Articles 125, 210, 214, 249, 308, 309, 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 36, 39, 153, 158 of the Housing Code Code of the Russian Federation, with the explanations set out in the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 (2015), approved by the Presidium on June 26, 2015, we came to the conclusion that the society’s demands were justified.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 24, 2019 N 303-ES18-23909 in case N A24-6361/2017

By imposing the obligation to pay for consumed thermal energy on the Federal State Institution "DVTUIO", to which the disputed property is assigned by the right of operational management, and if it does not have enough funds - on the owner - the Ministry of Defense of Russia, the courts were guided by the provisions of Articles 210, 214, 296, 308, 539 , 544 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and proceeded from the absence of an independent heat supply agreement between the plaintiff and the company.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 11, 2019 N 308-ES18-22809 in case N A32-31579/2017

When considering this case, the courts, guided by Articles , , 166, 167, 168, 200, 209, 214, 608 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 20, 27 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation (as amended in force during the disputed period), Article 12 of the Federal Law dated 03/14/1995 N 33-FZ “On Specially Protected Natural Territories”, explanations given in paragraph 24 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 03/24/2005 N “On some issues related to the application of land legislation”, paragraph 82 of the resolution of the Plenum The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2015 N “On the application by the courts of certain provisions of Section I of the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation,” came to the conclusion that the requirements of the Office of the Federal Property Management Agency were justified, including regarding the obligation of the Company to vacate the disputed plot, which is in federal ownership.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2019 N 305-ES18-23812 in case N A40-216537/2017

The courts of the first and appellate instances, having examined and assessed, according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the evidence presented in the case materials, guided by Article 52 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 125, 168, 209, 214, 296, 298, 422, 608 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 3 Federal Law of November 3, 2006 N 174-FZ “On Autonomous Institutions”, Article 13 of Federal Law of July 24, 1998 N 124-FZ “On Basic Guarantees of the Rights of the Child in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 124-FZ), Article 17.1 Federal Law of July 26, 2006 N 135-FZ “On the Protection of Competition” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 135-FZ), Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 10, 2007 N 662 “On approval of the Regulations on the exercise by federal executive bodies of the functions and powers of the founder of the federal autonomous institution", subclause 5.5.1 of clause 5 of the Regulations on the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 06/03/2013 N 466, Regulations on the Federal Agency for State Property Management, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/2008 N 432 , came to the conclusion that there are grounds for recognizing the lease agreement concluded by the defendants as invalid, since the institution entered into this agreement in relation to real estate, which is in federal ownership and assigned to the institution with the right of operational management, without the consent of the owner and in violation of the requirements of Article 13 of Law No. 124 -FZ and Article 17.1 of Law N 135-FZ.

Grounds for the emergence of state ownership of land

Such grounds are regulated by Articles 17 and 18 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, that is, the right of federal or regional property arises:

by virtue of federal law;
as a result of the delimitation of state ownership of land;
when a state body at the federal level or at the level of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation carries out a civil transaction under which the land plot was transferred into state ownership.

Subjects and objects of state ownership of land

u_note note_color=”#E9F8ED”]

Subjects of any property right, whether private or public, are the corresponding authorized persons who can own, use and dispose of their plots of land.[/su_note]

In addition, they must have signs of legal capacity.

In the case of state property, the subjects are:

Russian Federation as a whole;
each individual subject of the country.

It is the disposal of land plots that is carried out by state and regional authorities, which are endowed with similar powers by laws and other legal acts.
As for state property, as already mentioned, for each level there are separate types of land that can be owned by authorities at the federal and regional levels.

In addition, each plot that is an object of state property must have the following parameters:

Individual characteristics. This includes information such as cadastral number, location, as well as certain boundaries, area, intended purpose and type of permitted use.
Qualitative characteristics of the land plot or its share.
Cadastral valuation – that is, the value of the plot according to the cadastre.
Turnover (the site should not be limited in turnover or withdrawn from circulation).
Divisibility, that is, the plot must have the ability to be divided into several new land objects.

How land plots are formed from state-owned lands

Land plots classified as state or municipal property may become objects for the formation of new plots.

The formation of a new plot can be done in several ways:

combining several plots of land into one;
division of one land area into several new plots;
allocation of a new land plot (for municipal lands).

The procedure for the formation of a new plot of land can only begin in connection with the adoption of a resolution of a regional or local government authority.

In addition, without a land surveying project, the following areas cannot be formed:

from lands owned by organizations on a non-commercial basis;
land plots that citizens have enjoyed for a long time on the right of lifelong inheritable ownership (transferred by order of the administration);
from the lands included in the areas for residential development;
from those lands that are located within the built-up area.

In addition to the land surveying project, other documents are also required to form a new land plot from state lands. For example, title documents, information about the site from the Unified State Register of Real Estate in the form of an extract, etc.

Without the procedure of land surveying and cadastral work, the formation of a new site is impossible.

After carrying out boundary work and drawing up the final document, which reflects the boundaries of the new land plot, data about it are entered by Rosreestr into the Unified State Register of Real Estate.

Find out what establishing the boundaries of a land plot is and why it is carried out. All the information you need about land surveying is in the article. The cadastral passport and everything connected with it is in our material.

What do these numbers mean?

The document divides forms of ownership (FS) depending on the type to which the owner belongs. For example, property belonging to the Russian Federation is federal; property whose owner is named as a municipal entity - municipal, etc.

The classifier consists of three blocks:

digital encoding (two digits);
name of the form of ownership;
“collection algorithm”, or a set of position codes that make up a certain FS.

The concept of “collection algorithm” is used to more fully disclose the content of the codes of individual forms of ownership, which can be classified as grouping. OKFS has maintained the continuity of the previous classifier - KFS in terms of preserving the codes that define individual forms. At the same time, FS positions are introduced that are not directly named in the legislation of the Russian Federation, but are actually present in the economic sphere: “Mixed Russian (foreign) ownership”, “With joint Russian and foreign participation”.

Example of a collection algorithm

Code 15 “property of public and religious organizations” (this also includes associations) is the sum of property items:

50 - charitable organizations;
51 - political associations of a public nature;
52 - trade unions;
53 — public associations;
54 - religious associations.

One of the dominant positions is occupied by code 10, a grouping code denoting Russian property. It is summed up from state (11), municipal (14), owned by citizens of the Russian Federation permanently residing outside its borders (18), mixed Russian (17), consumer cooperation (19), property of public and religious organizations (15), private (16) , state corporations (61).