The forest is confused: why Russians are being stripped of land without compensation
In the village of Studenyi Ravine (a microdistrict of Samara), about 30 owners will lose their land plots by court decision: they are being seized at the request of the prosecutor's office, which discovered that many years ago this land was illegally removed from the forest fund and given over to individual housing construction. During this time, the owners of the territories changed, some residents began to build country houses, absolutely confident in the legality of the transactions. However, despite the absence of encumbrances in the EGRN information, the court recognized them as unscrupulous purchasers and decided to take away the plots. This story is not unique, the number of land seizure cases has increased recently. And it will continue to grow, experts say. Izvestia has learned why Russians are being stripped of their land and how to avoid it.
Why is the land being taken away from the residents of Samara?
The disputed land plots in the village of Studeny Ravine are located near the pumping and filtration station (NSF-2) in the Kirovsky district. Despite the proximity to the promobject, the place is very attractive: the territory of the village is surrounded by a forest, 10-15 minutes walk from the sites is the bank of the Volga River, a five—minute drive is a four—lane highway to the city, and 10 minutes away is the football stadium Solidarity Arena (formerly Samara Arena).
Irina Nalitova— one of those whom the court deprived of a plot on this territory, told Izvestia that she acquired the land from an individual in December 2021 at the auction of a Russian auction house. There were no problems with the site during the purchase: ownership in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities was registered with the seller, there were no notes about a court dispute, encumbrances, etc. there were no extracts from the state register. The type of permitted land use is for individual housing construction.
For the first time, ownership of this site was formalized in 2007 on the basis of a land certificate issued by the Samara administration back in 1992, after which this territory was repeatedly resold.
But in December 2023, the prosecutor's office appealed to the Kirovsky District Court of Samara with a claim for the reclamation of a land plot from "someone else's illegal possession." The supervisory authority considered that the procedure was violated during the initial granting of land ownership, which is why the site was illegally removed from the forest fund. The Kirovsky District Court agreed with the demands and decided to seize the disputed territory as state property without any compensation to Irina Nalitova.
There are about 30 such stories in Studenom Ravine so far, but the Izvestia interlocutor claims that their number will increase: more and more new claims are being filed.
A source familiar with the situation with the sale of land in this settlement told Izvestia that it is not possible to talk about the integrity of buyers in all cases. He noticed that some of the plots were just in the woods — and this could not but raise doubts when buying. Currently, there is no forest on some of the lands near the village, but according to archival satellite images, it is clear that the trees were destroyed only in the period from 2023 to 2025, when bald spots appeared (Izvestia checked archival images on satellite maps).
However, it is worth emphasizing that the site of Irina Nalitova, as well as her neighbor Elena Dobrynina, whose court decision on the land is available to Izvestia, does not concern this — the land there was cleared of forests, apparently, in the period from 2010 to 2011. The forest area is visible in the areas that are located to the northwest of the station, but they, too, were somehow being prepared for sale and were cleared of trees much earlier, albeit not completely. But the areas located to the southeast of NSF-2 were indeed cleared of forests only after 2023.
The source also claims that the land was sold cheaper than on the market, and this should also have alerted buyers. He is sure that the plots really need to be returned to the lands of the forest fund. In his opinion, people can claim compensation from the previous owners, who did not have the right to dispose of this land.
Why did the buyers turn out to be unscrupulous
In court, the defense side emphasized that the Nalitovs were bona fide buyers who simply could not have known that they were acquiring land illegally alienated from the forest fund many years ago, because everything was in order in the extracts from the register. Irina Nalitova also provided Izvestia with photographs that were taken when buying the plot: there was no forest on it, only one oak tree, which the family decided to keep.
In a letter addressed to Russian President Vladimir Putin in December 2025, the owner of the site points out another interesting fact: in July 2006, the Samara Prosecutor's office opened a criminal case against an unidentified person for forgery of official documents, which became the basis for the first registration of ownership of the disputed territory. But then this did not prevent them from repeatedly re-registering the plot for different owners. By the way, this letter from the presidential administration was sent for execution to the prosecutor's office of the Samara region, which, in fact, is the initiator of the lawsuits.
As a result, the court still considered the buyers to be unscrupulous: both Irina Nalitova and Elena Dobrynina. In the case of the latter, the court justified this by saying that there are "no real estate objects" on the land plot, the site has not been developed, and "with due diligence and inspection" there would be "reasonable doubts about the legality of the transfer of ownership of the land plot." It is also indicated that the site is located among perennial forest plantations.
Lawyer Ilya Kanunnikov, who represents the interests of several families, including Nalitova, emphasizes that from the Constitutional Court's explanation (resolution No. 3-P dated January 28, 2025) it follows that even if the land is in the forest fund, but there is good faith in the acquisition or the missed limitation period, such claims are not are subject to satisfaction. For the buyer, according to the defender, the information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities was an unambiguous basis for the legality of the purchase. The lawyer emphasizes that in 2023, the prosecutor's office did a great job together with Rosreestr, Rosleskhoz and other departments to identify violations during the transfer of land to residential housing. An ordinary citizen will not be able to pass such a path as part of a routine check. Therefore, the owners of the disputed territories do not intend to surrender.
— We will reach the last judicial instance, and if we fail to retain ownership of the site, we will file a claim for compensation — most likely compensation from the state, — Ilya Kanunnikov shares his plans. — Moreover, the previous owners were in the same position as the final buyers, and the plots were purchased at public auction with the participation of the federal trading platform.
The lawyer notes that the defense arguments were not taken into account at the trial. At the same time, no one explained what criteria of dishonesty are guided by the prosecutor's Office, the Federal Forestry Agency and the court.
In such disputes, the buyer's integrity should be assessed by his actions at the time of purchase, explains Natalia Scriabina, a member of the Russian Bar Association and lawyer at Leges Bureau Law Firm.
— If a person purchased a plot for a fee, was guided by the information of the EGRN, saw that the land was registered for cadastral registration for individual housing construction, and was not related to the initial registration of the plot, the conclusion about his dishonesty raises serious questions, — the interlocutor of Izvestia believes.
She also does not believe that an ordinary citizen was obliged to restore the entire archival chain of registration of the site since the 1990s and verify the legality of the actions of the authorities. In her opinion, the buyer has the right to rely on the information of the EGRN. She also recalls the "forest amnesty", which was adopted specifically for such situations — and in some cases, priority was given to the information from the Unified State Register of Natural Resources rather than the data from the forest register.
— Therefore, the key question here is whether a particular buyer had real grounds to doubt the legality of the site. If there were no such grounds, blaming the consequences of mistakes by government agencies on a citizen is a rather dangerous approach for the stability of the entire civil turnover, Natalia Scriabina is sure.
The Federal Forestry Agency also pointed out in a conversation with Izvestia that the law on forest amnesty was adopted in 2017 to "protect the rights of citizens and return illegally seized forest plots to the ownership of the country." The norm establishes clear criteria for when areas with intersections are amnestied and excluded from forest lands, and when they are subject to seizure and judicial protection measures.
The Office of the Federal Register for the Samara Region told Izvestia that information about the sites was entered into the Unified State Register of Legal Entities "on the basis of judicial acts that have entered into force in full and submitted documents."
The editorial board also sent inquiries to the government of the Samara region and the regional prosecutor's office. No responses had been received at the time of publication.
At the same time, the government of the Samara region previously reported to local media that the disputed territory in 1995 belonged to the lands of the Samara Forestry Forest Fund. In 2009, she was excluded from its membership on the basis of a court decision, but the Prosecutor General's Office established the illegality of the disposal of lands from federal ownership. In December 2025, the Arbitration Court of the Volga District decided to return the territory to the lands of the forest fund, but records of this were restored in the EGRN only in April 2026.
Where else can land be seized
Seizures of land plots in favor of the state have been going on for a long time, and their number will only increase, expects Marina Nenarokova, lawyer, General Director of Natural Code LLC. This applies not only to the lands of the forest fund, but also to the coastal strips.
For example, in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, a local resident had 13 hectares of land seized from private ownership, which was located in the water area of the Krasnoyarsk reservoir. And in April 2026, it became known that the Tomsk Prosecutor's office in court is seeking the return to federal ownership of more than 30.5 hectares of forest land, of which 10 years ago the administration of the Zarechny rural settlement formed a plot of land for sale for building.
The Federal Forestry Agency confirmed to Izvestia that, together with regional forest departments, they continue to work on the return of disputed territories to the borders of forestry. The agency recommends that residents check the site before purchasing it on the public forest map and in the national spatial data system to make sure there are no intersections with the lands of the forest fund. By the way, in the service "State Cadastral Assessment Data Fund", for example, Elena Dobrynina's plot still has the type of permitted use "for individual housing construction".
It is possible to predict where else disputed territories may appear by analyzing and comparing the boundaries of municipalities, territories actually covered with forest plantations, and open information from Rosreestr public services, said Pavel Efanov, Chairman of the Board of the Association for the Development of Land and Property Relations. It is important to pay attention to the number of offers for the sale of land.
— Real estate objects are in the zone of greatest risk — land plots located separately, outside the boundaries of agricultural and agricultural enterprises, covered with perennial forest plantations, adjacent to recreational facilities — recreation camps, rest homes, etc., without access via paved roads, — explains the interlocutor of Izvestia. — Such sites may be located on slopes, in ravines, without perennial garden plantings, located in enclaves in areas covered with forest, etc.
Why didn't the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities become proof?
In fact, thousands of citizens have become hostages of the inconsistency of state registers, Marina Nenarokova emphasizes. She calls the Ruling of the Constitutional Court No. 3-P, to which Irina Nalitova's defense referred, an important milestone in protecting the rights of private owners in these cases. The legal positions of the document influence judicial practice on the lands of the forest fund, protected areas and coastal strips. Initially, the resolution concerned the "Sochi gardeners' case" — in the 1990s and 2000s, citizens legally received plots from municipalities, built houses, farmed and registered their rights with the Federal Register, but decades later, the prosecutor's office and the Federal Property Management Agency began filing lawsuits en masse, claiming that these lands were originally part of the Sochi National Park or They were illegally privatized from the forest fund.
At that time, the Constitutional Court considered the presumption of good faith to be a fundamental principle: it depended on the actions of government agencies whether the land would be legally owned, and mistakes caused by a lack of interdepartmental interaction — for example, when Rosreestr data contradicted the State Forest Register — could not be blamed on citizens.
Nevertheless, although land seizures often have all the legal grounds, the relatively young resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation does not always work, Marina Nenarokova notes. According to her, the EGRN statement is not a panacea in proving the legality of land use.
This register is still under development and improvement, as is the State Forest Register, supplemented by Pavel Efanov. But neither one nor the other circumstance prevents requests to the Roskadastr Control Center, regional government authorities, etc. when making transactions.
The Office of the Federal Register for the Samara Region also stated that an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities is an "important tool for verifying" the legal purity of a real estate object, but it is "not the only tool for verifying the security of a transaction."
"For maximum protection, it is necessary to comprehensively approach the verification of the object, the seller and the terms of the transaction, using additional legal and practical measures," the department noted. — You can independently verify information about land plots using the National Spatial Data System (NSPD) portal and the services of the FGIS ECP NSPD.
In addition, it is possible to check land plots by comparing master plans and rules of land use and development, as well as making maps of zones with special conditions, Marina Nenarokova continues. In an amicable way, you need to look at the elements of administrative law, check previous sellers, find out the origin of the object, etc. Comparing all the data makes it possible to identify errors or prove the integrity of the final copyright holder if the case goes to court. However, in practice, it is very difficult to take everything into account: not even an ordinary realtor, but a specialized expert can handle this.
Pavel Efanov also calls for attracting specialists in the field of land relations. But he advises citizens themselves to pay attention to suspiciously low prices, as well as the location of the plots: it is worth considering if they are located outside the boundaries of gardening associations, there is no asphalt road leading to them, they are overgrown with forests or enclaves are located among forest plantations.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
