Duplicate Title and a 35 m² Overlap in the Land Registry Index
A notary lodges a subdivision plan for Lot 14, a 0.405 ha parcel in Kandy District, into Lot 14A (0.203 ha) and Lot 14B (0.202 ha). The Land Registry's digital index flags a 35 m² overlap between proposed Lot 14A and Lot 13, which has a 1988 certificate of title and a registered plan. The new plan was prepared from a 2021 total-station survey tied to two GNSS-derived control points; the old Lot 13 plan is a paper plan with no grid coordinates, showing a fence, a 10 ft road reserve, and an adjoining lot owned by the temple. The registry's Bim Saviya data was captured by digitising the old paper plan, and the digitised Lot 13 boundary is within 2.1 m of the new computed line. The Lot 13 owner objects and produces a 1995 building permit showing a wall 1.0 m inside the disputed strip. The notary asks you, as the checking surveyor, to confirm that the overlap is only a 'computer error' so that registration can proceed. You have the new field data, the old plan, the registry extract, and a 2005 orthophoto.
1. How should you determine whether the 35 m² overlap is real or an artefact of the digital index?
Read the worked answer
Treat the digital flag as a question, not a conclusion. First compare the new plan's common boundary with the old Lot 13 paper plan: check the old plan's dimensions, the road reserve, the fence and the temple boundary. Then survey the old Lot 13 boundary in the field, looking for original monuments or other physical evidence. The 2005 orthophoto and the 1995 building permit wall are useful occupation evidence, but neither proves title.
Test the datum and digitising chain. A 2.1 m positional difference in the Bim Saviya capture can easily create a 35 m² apparent overlap on a long narrow strip. If the overlap disappears when the old plan is aligned on its own monuments, it is likely an index artefact. If it remains outside the combined uncertainty, it is a real overlap requiring resolution. The surveyor should report the evidence and uncertainty, not declare title.
2. What should the checking surveyor report to the Registrar?
Read the worked answer
Report the reconstruction method, the field evidence, the positional uncertainty and the resulting overlap. If the overlap is within the combined uncertainty of the old plan and the digital capture, recommend correcting the Bim Saviya georeferencing or re-registering the old plan geometry before treating the new plan as conflicting. If the overlap remains real, recommend that the new plan be amended, or that the parties produce a boundary agreement or a legal determination, before registration proceeds.
Do not certify that the matter is merely a 'computer error' unless the evidence supports that conclusion. A short, clear plan notation should identify the disputed strip and the basis of the adopted line. The Registrar can then decide the registration action on accurate information.
3. The notary presses you to sign the requested confirmation. How do you handle the pressure?
Read the worked answer
Maintain independence. Explain that the confirmation requested is a professional opinion, not a procedural favour, and that you cannot give it without evidence. Put your findings and the reasons for any limitation in writing, copy the client where appropriate, and keep the correspondence and field records.
If the notary or client insists on a false or unsupported certification, decline and, if necessary, escalate the matter through the appropriate professional or registry channel. The registry and the public rely on the surveyor's check; signing away a real overlap would expose the client, the neighbour and the surveyor to later dispute.