jamshid zargari

The land registration system is a critical database that individuals rely on for information about immovable property. A key feature of an efficient database is the comprehensiveness of its information, which is equally vital in land registration systems. Ensuring comprehensive registration information has always been a concern for those overseeing land registration systems globally. Incomplete registration data can lead to discrepancies between registration information and the actual state of lands, potentially causing public distrust and various negative repercussions.Historically, land regulations have been intertwined with social considerations, presenting continual challenges for land registration systems. Social considerations often conflict with formalism and registration laws. For example, in pre-Islamic Arab societies, where literacy was uncommon, documentation alone was insufficient to prove ownership, leading to hardships in transactions. Such historical perspectives in Islamic jurisprudence, which significantly influences Iran's legal system, pose challenges to encouraging individuals to register their land.With societal development, the negative impacts of deficient registration information became more evident, including transaction instability, fraud, boundary disputes, and difficulties in implementing macro policies due to unregistered land. Efforts to overcome social considerations and ensure comprehensive registration information have become more pronounced. Notably, Theodore Burton Fox Ruoff, head of the UK Land Registry in the 1960s and 1970s, introduced the "mirror principle," aiming to make the land registration system a reflection of all facts related to immovable property.Despite procedural similarities between the land registration systems of Iran and the UK, Iran lacks a comprehensive literature on the mirror principle. The challenge of registration information deficiencies due to social considerations is common across all land registration systems, and Iran's system is no exception. This paper investigates whether Iran's land registration system has successfully achieved comprehensive registration information for immovable property. It also explores the reasons behind any successes or failures, evaluates the UK's status in ensuring comprehensive registration information through the mirror principle, and identifies UK practices that could benefit Iran's system.The research is structured into four sections: historical context and definition, theoretical basis, conditions and legal effects, and a comparative approach to the mirror principle in the UK and Iran. In the historical context and definition section, the paper delves into the evolution of land registration systems, highlighting the development of the mirror principle in the UK. The theoretical basis section examines the legal theories underpinning the mirror principle, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive and accurate information in land registration for ensuring legal certainty and protecting property rights. The conditions and legal effects section explore the practical implementation of the mirror principle, detailing the specific legal and administrative measures taken to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the land register. This section also analyzes the legal implications of implementing the mirror principle, including the potential benefits and challenges associated with ensuring that the land register accurately reflects the current state of property rights.During these sections, the paper shows that Iran's current regulations do not fully support the realization of the mirror principle. Historically, the policy of mandatory public registration has not succeeded in encouraging landowners to register their properties due to inadequate enforcement mechanisms and the non-essential role of registration in legal transactions. Furthermore, numerous exceptions to mandatory registration in Iran present significant obstacles to achieving the mirror principle.To improve the comprehensiveness of registration information and achieve the mirror principle, several recommendations are proposed. First, the registration process should be transformed, making registration a prerequisite for any legal transactions. Non-registered deeds and informal agreements should be invalidated to enforce mandatory registration. This would provide a strong incentive for landowners to register their properties, ensuring that the land register accurately reflects the current state of property rights.Second, future reforms should aim to minimize exceptions to mandatory registration as much as possible, retaining only those exceptions where their existence is justified by critical reasons outweighing the broader goals of the registration system. By reducing the number of exceptions, the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the land register can be significantly improved, ensuring that it serves as a reliable source of information about immovable property.Achieving the mirror principle in Iran's land registration system is essential for ensuring public trust in its efficiency and protecting immovable property. The research underscores the need for regulatory reforms to address current deficiencies and adopt best practices from the UK’s system. Implementing the mirror principle would enhance the reliability of the land register, providing a clear and accurate reflection of property ownership and rights. This, in turn, would facilitate more secure and efficient property transactions, reduce the risk of disputes, and support the effective implementation of macro policies related to land management and development.In conclusion, the comprehensive implementation of the mirror principle in Iran's land registration system is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of registration information, fostering public trust, and protecting property rights. The proposed measures aim to create a robust, comprehensive registration system capable of meeting macro policies and effectively safeguarding individual property rights.

The title selected by a judge for its final decision is one of the crucial elements in judicial proceedings and based on law, it may be judgment or writ. Although there exists a legal standard for choosing a judicial decision's title, the jurisprudences of Iranian courts illustrate that the mistake and negligence in selecting the type of judicial decision are probable. It is impossible that the judge himself can vary the decision's type after issuing it because such a change leads to modifying the basics of the decision that it was banned by regulations. Given that any type of judicial decision has special effects on proceedings and rights of members of action and its type remains unknown can violate their rights, it is necessary that the appellate court interfere to correct its type in respect of the jurisdiction of corrective proceedings. By using a way descriptive-analytical manner and with library resources and jurisprudences, firstly, it was investigated the theoretical basics and the source jurisdiction of the appeal courts in describing the type of judicial decision and its legal standard. Secondly, we researched the feasibility study of describing the type of unknown type decisions to judgment or writ in this paper. To conclude, the article showed that the appeal courts do not have permission to describe the type of unknown type judicial decisions for protecting the rights of persons and the proper implementation of the current regulations. However. it is presented several suggestions for amending civil procedural law.

The issue of eliminating the effects of usurpation in properties, beyond the past, has turned into a battleground between the principle of property respect and the institution of equity. While the aforementioned principle seeks maximum protection of the rights of the rightful owner and the disciplining of the usurper, even with good intentions, through the establishment of strict judgments and traditional regulations regarding the institution of usurpation in Iranian civil law, the institution of equity aims to prevent misuse of rights by the owner and the imposition of significant harm on the usurper with goodwill, striving to moderate traditional and strict interpretations. Although initially the institution of equity was manifested in the form of legal texts on civil liability, the turning point in fair efforts comes with the approval of the "Legal Bill on the Removal of Encroachment and Compensation for Damages to Properties, passed in 1358" by the Council of Revolution. In this research, using descriptive and analytical methods and utilizing library resources and judicial procedures, we have sought to examine the quality of mitigating the effects of usurpation in non-past properties, considering the principles of property respect and the institution of equity in the legal system of Iran. It has been observed that, under certain conditions, there are legal capacities for issuing fair judgments that can secure the interests of both the owner and the usurper with goodwill in Iranian law.

The efficiency of the land registration system is affected by several components that are divided into two internal levels and specific to each legal and fundamental system. At the domestic level, these components are affected by the structure of the domestic system, especially property law, but at the basic level, the commonalities of various legal systems are studied. The question is, what are the basic components and how is it achieved? In this paper, with a comparative study in the two land registration systems of Iran and the United Kingdom, after stating the basic components of land registration, which are: Simplicity in the process of registering real estate, granting legal and economic security to real estate, complete registration of land status, accuracy in registering land information, public access to registration information, independence of land registration system, low cost of real estate registration, approach both systems were examined in realizing such components.The result shows that in both systems, all components are not strictly observed and in some cases there are shortcomings that need to be addressed.

There is no clear solution, in civil justice system and judicial procedure of Iran, how to resolve the dispute among courts regarding to the recognition of full connection among related actions. The question is that which judicial authority should recognize the full connection? And in the event of a dispute on the recognition of the full connection between the two courts, whether in same jurisdiction or in two different jurisdictions or different degrees, how to resolve it? In the current legal order, is there a judicial authority to resolve the dispute? The necessity of answering this question is important because lack of clear and precise rules in this matter causes delays in judicial proceedings, conflicting verdicts, inadequate judgments, and a loss of public confidence in the judiciary. In this article, in a descriptive-analytical manner and with library resources, in addition to analyzing ambiguous cases, suggestions and solutions to silent cases under internal regulations, judicial procedure and comparative law are presented. The result shows that according to the current legal order, despite recognizing the full connection by one branch of the court and sending case to another branch of that court, this branch of the court has obligation to hear related actions for preventing the cessation of the judicial proceedings. However, it is contrary to the principle of judicial independence and imposing the substantive opinion of one branch of the court on another branch of that court. Therefore, it is suggested that in future amendments to Civil Procedure Law, disputes among courts in recognizing full connection in two courts with same jurisdiction, the head of the jurisdiction is in charge and if two courts are in two different jurisdictions or being between supreme court and civil court, the dispute resolution shall be conducted under rules settlement of jurisdictional disputes.

As a result of incorrect registration information, if persons who acted on the basis of this information are damaged, according to the general rules, the injured party must claim compensation for that damage by filing a lawsuit then proving the elements of civil liability. Given the difficulty of proving these elements, as well as the possibility of injurious' financial inability, will not guarantee that the injured party will be fully compensated. This result will ultimately be to the detriment of persons who have trusted and acted on the registration system. Therefore, in the legal system of Australia and then, the United Kingdom, a mechanism called Insurance Principle was created. This principle, by guaranteeing the financial value of Title lost as a result of incorrect registration information by the government, prevents the loss of public trust in the registration system and the damage to persons. This research has been written in descriptive, analytical and historical methods, also using authoritative library and electronic sources and it is examined the history of Insurance Principle in Australia and the United Kingdom, under what conditions the economic security of registered land title is guaranteed in the registration system, on what basis was it established and what will be the consequences of its realization. Also, by examining the Iranian legal system, it is observed that the Insurance Principle has not been realized in the Iranian registration system, therefore, it is proposed to the legislature to use this principle to achieve public trust in the registration system.