Requesting information from the land registry

The director of the land registry provides information to an interested person for any entry or transfer in the land registry upon payment of a fee

There are various reasons for someone to request information from the director of the land registry, upon payment of the prescribed fee. All registrations and transfers of immovable property are recorded in the registry kept by each district land office.

Any interested person, such as an owner, their heirs or legatees, a beneficiary of a right or interest in immovable property, a potential purchaser or mortgagee, a plaintiff in an action against a property owner, a valuer who requests information for the purpose of valuation related to compulsory acquisition as well as a lawyer who was assigned by any of the aforementioned persons, is entitled to request information regarding any entry in the registration or transfer of an immovable property.

Credit Institutions are also entitled to receive such information after filing an application stating the reasons for their request.

Relevant to the above are the provisions of article 51A of the Law on Immovable Property, Cap.224.

When a credit institution requests such information, the land registry director provides it without verifying the reasons stated in the application. The credit institution must inform the owner of the property in question in writing and state the reasons for the application.

The director may subsequently conduct a sample audit in order to ascertain the reasons submitted, by sending a letter requesting the credit institution to justify the reasons behind the request. The credit institution is obliged to respond promptly (within a month) and give the director all necessary evidence justifying the purpose of the requested information along with a copy of the information letter sent to the owner. The owner may submit a written request to the director to carry out an ex-post check on whether the credit institution had indeed reasonable grounds to obtain the information in question.

The Supreme Court, in the context of a decision it issued in application No.49/2023, dated May 24, for the issuance of a madamus order, interpreted the meaning of the term ‘interested person’ as provided in the relevant law. According to the facts of the case, the plaintiff in a lawsuit sought a declaratory order against the defendants recognising that he has the right to use and possess an immovable property which was registered in the defendants’ name.

The action was dismissed by the court of first instance, but the court of appeal overturned the judgement by issuing a relevant declaratory order. Subsequently, the plaintiff, through his lawyer, requested from the director of the land registry a certified copy of the declaration of the transfer of an immovable property, which was allegedly submitted prior to the issuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court. This information came to the knowledge of the plaintiff much later.

The information was requested so the plaintiff could use it to file legal proceedings against the persons who submitted the relevant declaration of transfer to the land registry. The director refused to provide a certified copy of the declaration of transfer with all enclosed documents, relying on Article 51A of Cap.224. The plaintiff applied to the Supreme Court for a leave to proceed with a writ of madamus ordering the director to provide it.

The Supreme Court referred to the facts of the case and Article 51A, interpreting that the term “interested person” who is entitled to be provided with such information, also includes a lawyer who is duly authorised by the aforementioned persons to request information for the registration or transfer in a registry or other book kept by each district land office.

The Supreme Court remarked that the application to the land registry was submitted by the plaintiff’s lawyer as the authorised representative, in accordance with the relevant provision of the law. Therefore, the lawyer is the interested person who rightfully, upon payment of the prescribed fee, could submit an application and request any information allowed by the relevant law. Consequently, the court concluded that, under the circumstances, it was the plaintiff’s lawyer, and not the plaintiff, who had the right to file the application for mandamus and the application was dismissed.

George Coucounis is a lawyer practicing in Larnaca and the founder of GEORGE COUCOUNIS LLC, Advocates & Legal Consultants, www.coucounis.law, [email protected]