If you and your neighbour are unable to reach an agreement, even using the diagrams, or if you can`t find the land limit, you should ask a registered surveyor to redefine the boundary. A contractor who deviates from plans if he builds on your land could be guilty of trespassing — building part of your home on a neighbour`s property. The neighbour could request the demolition of the penetrating part or the payment of compensation for the use of part of his land. A court might decide that a demolition would be unreasonable (for example. B because the cost of removing the structure exceeds the benefits for your neighbor) and orders you to transfer the part of your neighbor`s property on which the building has penetrated. On the one hand, the resulting lack of authority for discrimination may be unconstitutional, since there is no general right to discriminate within the meaning of Section 25, paragraph 1. The creation of an easement to explain the persistence of the intervention is not automatically accepted at the general discretion to replace distance with compensation. It is argued that an order requiring the landowner concerned to register an easement in favour of the intruder in order to preserve the existing intervention situation is at odds with Section 25 (1), to the extent that the common law does not permit such an injunction. In addition, a provision creating an easement against that of the landowner concerned must be justified separately with respect to the non-arbitrary requirement of Section 25(1). In this regard, the injunction, both generally and personally, will be unjustified and therefore arbitrary. There is a regulation in the Netherlands that has accepted the only two cases where a landowner cannot insist on the elimination of an intervention, namely that the decision in this case gives the impression that the courts can now order that an easement be registered in favour of the intruder against the property of the landowner concerned. It appears that the court had in mind the creation of a pre-diale easement to justify the persistence of the intervention.
The easement is created by court order against the will of the landowner concerned. In the common law, the creation of an easement does not exist in this regard and the authority from which the power to make such an order comes is not entirely clear. Nor does the court have authority over the creation of servitude for the benefit of the intruder. Therefore, it is argued that this could have serious constitutional consequences. Therefore, a landowner cannot insist on eviction unless he knowingly authorized the intervention. However, in such circumstances, damages can still be obtained. If your neighbour may wish to build another fence, the dispute, if there is no agreement between the owners, will have to be resolved by a three-person office. Each litigant may appoint a member to the board of directors and the two appointed members appoint a third party to decide the dispute.
If one of the neighbours does not appoint a member or appoint a third member, the supreme magistrate of the borough where the land is located may appoint a member. The third member is the speaker of the chamber and the decision of the majority constitutes the decision of the chamber, which can be enforced as a judgment of the Magistrate in this area. If the two neighbours agree, a single-member body can decide the dispute between them.