Table of Contents
Tung Chung Land King
In July 2024, a High Court ruling put an end to the Tung Chung land rights dispute that had lasted for more than two decades. Tang Keling, the widow of Chan Chung, who was known as the "Tung Chung Land King" by the public, finally lost the land ownership lawsuit against Forestside Limited, a subsidiary of the Wharf Group. This judicial battle and defense involving 2.18 hectares of land and spanning half a century not only exposed the practical difficulties of Hong Kong's adverse possession system, but also reflected the deep-seated contradictions in land governance in the New Territories.
A landmark case involving a land dispute in the New Territories was recently settled. The High Court ruled that Chen Zun, a man who claimed to have been "farming" on three plots of land totaling more than 21,000 square meters in Tung Chung for more than half a century, lost the adverse possession lawsuit filed by his widow.
If I am talking nonsense, God will strike me with lightning!
The High Court's agricultural land dispute case resumed yesterday when a fierce confrontation broke out. When cross-examining the plaintiff, Ms. Deng, the defendant's lawyer cited the agricultural expert witness report and pointed out that her husband, Mr. Chen, had essentially abandoned farming the farmland in question since 2001, and the vegetation in the relevant area had been in a state of long-term abandonment. Ms. Deng refuted this strongly, emphasizing that her husband had been managing the farmland for 20 years and had even erected metal fences in some areas of the farmland to prevent wild boars from invading.
The court battle reached a climax when the defendant's lawyer presented key evidence. The defense presented several historical photos taken between 2005 and 2009 in court, showing that the alleged fence facilities did not exist at all. Faced with contradictory evidence, Ms. Deng emotionally pointed her finger to the sky and swore in court: "Every word of my testimony is true. If I tell even a single lie, I will be struck by lightning! Everything I've experienced on the farm over the years is my own personal experience!" Her oath echoed in the courtroom, causing a brief commotion.
According to court records, this case involves a twenty-year-long dispute over agricultural land ownership, and the key issue lies in determining the continuity of actual farming practices. The presiding judge has asked both parties to submit additional written statements regarding the new evidence, and the case will continue this Friday.
JudgeZhou JiamingThe verdict directly pointed out that there were major contradictions in the key evidence and revealed details of the parties' suspected false statements.
Case context and legal disputes
This case originated from Chen Zun'sWharfThe adverse possession action filed by its subsidiary Forestside Limited alleges continuous occupation of the land in question since 1962. According to Hong Kong's Limitation Ordinance, adverse possession must meet the two major requirements of "actual possession" and "exclusive control", and the rights must be exercised continuously for more than 12 years. However, during the trial of the case (2015), Chen Zun died of illness, and his spouse Deng Keling continued to prosecute.
Three major doubts about judicial review
In his 32-page judgment, the judge systematically pointed out three major legal flaws of the plaintiff:
- Contradictions in cadastral evidence: The land parcel in question was originally registered as a pond. Chen claimed that he had started farming the same year he arrived in Hong Kong, but he could not explain how he could have started farming without any pond filling. Historical aerial images taken by the Lands Department show that there were still large areas of water in the area until the 1980s.
- Management capabilities are questionable: the two disputed plots are 380 meters apart in a straight line, and their total area is equivalent to three standard football fields. The judge questioned how a single farmer could effectively manage the area, as there were no fences or boundary markers at the site and no supporting evidence such as crop production and sales records.
- The credibility of the testimony collapsed: key witness Deng Shuping admitted that he had never seen any fenced-off area on the land; Deng Keling stated in court that the management style of "will make sure that no one uses the land" was criticized by the judge as "not even having basic security measures". It was also discovered that the Chen couple's statements about the starting year of occupation were inconsistent.
Issue 1: Evidential value of occupation start date
Chen Fang claimed that he had been using the land continuously since 1962, but was unable to provide any official documents to support his claim. The court noted:
- In the 1960s, Tung Chung was still a remote area and most farmers did not have formal leases.
- But Chen failed to explain how farming could be implemented in a fish pond environment.
- The so-called "planting trees to consolidate the soil" theory contradicts the geographical conditions at the time
Issue 2: Criteria for determining substantial possession
According to the principle established in Leung Kam Ho v. Grandeur International Group, an occupier must demonstrate management behavior "as if it were a bona fide owner." The judge found that:
- 2.18 hectares of land divided by roads and lacking uniform fencing
- Witnesses confirmed that they were free to go in and out to catch fish and crabs
- The so-called "guarding" is limited to verbal threats, with no actual control measures
Issue 3: Proof of Exclusive Use
The key lies in whether the "real owners" are excluded from exercising their rights. The evidence shows:
- Wharf subsidiary sent personnel to inspect and put up signs in 1998
- When the Lands Department discovered the illegal dumping in 2005, Chen did not claim ownership.
- Not paying rates or government taxes for many years
Point 4: Legality of occupation
The judge citedWong Tak Yue v. Zhang FamilyPoints out that illegal activities do not constitute the basis for "adverse possession":
- Dumping of construction waste is a criminal offence (Waste Disposal Ordinance)
- Land reclamation requires approval from the Town Planning Board
- Some areas were converted to container storage, beyond agricultural use.
Issue 5: Legitimacy of inheritance litigation
The special thing about this case is that the plaintiff died during the litigation. The court confirmed:
- Adverse possession is a "personal right" and cannot be inherited in principle.
- However, under Chapter 15 of the Rules of the High Court, a personal representative may continue an unfinished lawsuit.
- The key is whether the possession status has been completed during the plaintiff's lifetime.
The chain of evidence collapses: a full record of the contradictions in witness testimonies
The verdict reveals many fatal flaws in Chen Fang's evidence:
The paradox of agricultural claims
- Soil testing shows that heavy metals exceed the limit and are not suitable for farming
- The crop photos were identified as short-term staged photos
- The so-called "irrigation system" is actually an illegal connection to the government water pipes
The memory fallacy of time witnesses
The main witness, Deng Shuping, claimed that he "often went fishing when he was a child", but:
- His birth year (1971) differs by 9 years from the occupation start date claimed by Chen.
- Failure to describe the 1960s landscape in detail
- Admits never having seen any crops
Inconsistencies in the widow's testimony
Deng Keling made major mistakes during cross-examination:
- Initially claimed to be "daily patrols", but later changed to "monthly inspections"
- Unable to explain the specific boundaries of the three plots of land
- Acknowledges that some areas are used as parking lots by third parties
The judge’s opinion: Why was it determined to be “blatant lying”?
Judge Szeto King pointed out in paragraph 147 of his judgment:
"The plaintiff attempted to package temporary and intermittent use as exclusive possession lasting 60 years. This act of plundering land through litigation seriously violates the original legislative intent of the adverse possession system."
Three strong evidences for judicial review
- Aerial photo comparison: The land use changed many times between 1984 and 2010
- Water Supplies Department records: The first water use application was received in 2003
- EPA archives: 7 waste disposal fines issued from 2005 to 2010
Social response: polarized reactions from civil society groups
The verdict sparked heated debate:
- New Territories Indigenous Peoples Association: Support the court in defending the property rights system
- Land Justice Alliance: Concerned that precedents will squeeze the space for the disadvantaged
- Legal professionals: It is recommended to amend the Limitation Ordinance to clarify the agricultural occupation standards
Academic view: Li Minghui, professor of sociology at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, analyzed:
“This case reflects the dilemma of land governance in the post-colonial era. When ‘indigenous privileges’ encounter ‘land hoarding by developers’, lower-class immigrants can only survive on the edge of the law and eventually become victims of institutional conflicts.”
Historical Mirror: Comparison of Cases of Adverse Possession in Hong Kong
By comparing important cases in the past thirty years, we can see that judicial standards have become stricter:
Successful cases of occupation
- Wong Roy v. Hong Kong Government (1998): 60 years of continuous use of family cemetery, evidence of religious worship
- Li Ah-choi case (2005): Building a squatter hut and maintaining it, supported by the testimony of neighbors
Key to failure cases
- Li Deren case (2012): parking lot operation lacks exclusivity
- Mrs Lee’s case (2019): Planting trees without permission is not considered as an act of possession
The perspective of law and economics: the social cost of adverse possession
This case consumed more than 1,200 hours of judicial resources, highlighting institutional problems:
- There are about 2,400 hectares of ancestral land in the New Territories with unclear ownership
- Lands Department faces backlog of over 50,000 land disputes
- The average trial period for each adverse possession case is 6.8 years
Calls for reform: The Institute of Surveyors' proposal
- Establishment of the "Land Historical Archives Database"
- Import satellite images as time-sensitive evidence
- Establish an occupancy registration early warning system
International comparison: the institutional evolution of the Anglo-American legal system
Comparison with developments in other common law jurisdictions:
- In 2012, the UK amended the law to shorten the validity period of agricultural land to 30 years
- Singapore requires occupants to publicize their claims for 12 years
- Victoria, Australia introduces the requirement of "good faith possession"
Judicial Revelation: A Memorandum to Owners and Occupiers
This case extracts important legal principles:
Defense Strategies for Owners
- Cadastral inspections every 5 years
- Issue a written warning for encroachment
- Install digital monitoring equipment on the land
Risk warning for occupiers
- Keep proof of occupancy such as utility bills
- Establish a continuous usage record
- Avoid engaging in illegal modification activities
Future battlefield: Possible appeal by the widow
Despite the loss, the legal community is paying attention to subsequent developments:
- The "Disability Extension" provision of Section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance can be invoked (Chen Zun suffered from cancer in his later years)
- Or use "procedural flaws" to argue about the standard of evidence adoption
- However, the legal community generally estimates that the chance of a comeback is less than 15%
Deep reflection: The unfinished road of land justice
This lawsuit, spanning two generations, ended with the court's finding of facts, but did not quell the institutional dispute. As urban development engulfs villages in the New Territories, how can the judiciary strike a balance between property rights protection and social justice? What this case leaves behind is not only a losing verdict, but also a profound questioning of Hong Kong’s land governance.
Judicial Insights and Social Warnings
The judgment particularly emphasized the principle of "land use ≠ legal possession", pointing out that although the defendant company did not evict Chen for a long time, it did not mean that it acquiesced in the transfer of rights. This case highlights loopholes in rural land management, and the verdict warns of the potential risks of "asserting land rights in a manner that damages the environment." It is worth noting that Chen admitted that he expanded the land use by dumping construction waste (dumping mud), which is suspected of violating the Waste Disposal Ordinance.
Subsequent impact
The losing party must bear the other party's legal costs, which according to industry estimates may exceed tens of millions of Hong Kong dollars. Legal experts analyzed that this case will strengthen the obligation of land owners to conduct regular inspections and impose higher requirements on the evidence for "claiming land rights through long-term use." Information from the Planning Department shows that the land in question is currently zoned as "undetermined use" and its development potential has attracted much attention as the Tung Chung New Town expands.
Case number: HCA2055/2011
Further reading:
