Markvederlag vid fastighetsreglering - En studie om tillämpningen av FBL 5 kap. 2 §

Sammanfattning: Chapter 5 article 2 of the Property Formation Act reads that the person who forfeitsland shall be compensated with land primarily. This means that the principal rule isthat land shall be compensated with land, but when this is not deemed appropriated compensation in money is acceptable. Furthermore, the paragraphmeans that the Surveying Authority (LM) may decide against the land owners wish that compensation shall be in the form of land, if it is deemed appropriate. In order for itto be possible for LM to decide that compensation should be in the form of land, itmust of course exist suitable land to be used as compensation. If there is no suitableland available, compensation in land cannot be deemed appropriate and then compensation shall be paid in cash. Thus, special circumstances are required for compensation in land to be appropriate. In practice, this results in the fact that in almost all instances the ceded land is compensated with money and not by compensation in land. The question is therefore whether this is in line with the legislature's intention with the paragraph. By studying the legal cases that are available on the subject, preliminary work regarding the paragraph and conducting a case study of cadastral procedures, one canget an idea of how the paragraph is used today. Of a total of 778 cadastral proceduresfrom 2018 that were analyzed, no one mentioned in their protocol the issue ofcompensation in land. One cadastral procedure of relevance for this paper was obtained thru contact with LM. Furthermore, a cadastral procedure of relevance was obtained from a legal case regarding chapter 5 article 2 of the Property Formation Act. The investigation and analysis conducted in this paper concludes that the paragraph does not seem to be applied in the way that the legislature intended. Instead the exception in the paragraph, that land can be compensated with money, is the common practice. When studying legal cases it became clear that they were not to any great extent indicative of the assessment regarding when compensation in land can bejudged to be more appropriate than compensation in money. Thus, there are stillmajor questions about when compensation in land can be used. This may be a contributing factor to the fact that the paragraph is not being applied as intended by the legislature.