Family members  should substitute 27 decimal and 10 decimal land to buyers

Staff reporter

Thimphu dzongkhag court’s criminal bench II found former Chang gup, late gup Naku, guilty of illegal encroachment on government land.

The court, however, did not sentence the defendant, as the defendant expired during the trial of the case.

The judgment given earlier this month stated that late gup Naku had illegally converted 1.50 acres of sokshing belonging to late Namgay Zangmo in Chang gewog to 1.10 acres of wetland and registered it in his name during the Chang gewog National Sathram Compilation.

Late gup Naku was found guilty of illegally encroaching on government land and selling 27 decimals to an individual named Tshering Yangchen and 10 decimals to Thinley Wangchuk.

The court also ruled that the 73 decimal land in late gup Naku’s thram, 426, should be restituted to the government within a month after the judgment was rendered.

The judgment stated that plaintiff (Office of the Attorney General) should spearhead the restitution and report it to the judgment enforcement to the court.

It also stated that the 27 decimal land registered in Tshering Yangchen’s name and 10 decimal land in Thinley Wangchuk’s name should also be also restituted to the government within a month after the judgment.

The court ruled that late gup Naku’s family should substitute the 27 decimals of land to Yangchen Wangmo and 10 decimals to Thinley Wangchuk according to section 117 of the Movable and Immovable Act 1999. “If there is no land in late gup Naku’s name, the family should compensate the buyers the cost of the land with interest.”

This is according to a submission made by a buyer, Thinley Wangchuk, who submitted to the court that he bought the land legally from late gup Naku through  the dzongkhag and land commission. “I took loans to buy the land and should now be substituted with land registered in Naku’s name if the land I bought has to be restituted to the government.”

Section 117 of the Movable and Immovable Act 1999 specifies liability following death of a debtor and states, “Where a debtor has died and there remains outstanding obligation under a loan, security or mortgage agreement to which the deceased was a party, then the estate of the deceased is responsible for the obligations.”