The short answer is: rarely, and only on defined grounds. The Land Registration Act is designed to make registered titles hard to disturb, because that is what gives the system its value.
The grounds are a closed list
Section 33(1) says the registered proprietor holds absolutely free from all encumbrances except the nine matters listed. Section 33(2) then adds that this is not affected by the existence in any other person of an estate or interest — whether derived by grant from the State or otherwise — which but for this Act might be held to be paramount or to have priority.
Read together, those two subsections mean: if your complaint does not fall within one of the nine exceptions, it does not defeat the registered title, however strong it would have been at common law or in equity.
The nine grounds, and what each is good for
| Exception | Effect | Can it defeat the title? |
|---|---|---|
| (a) Fraud | Actual dishonesty by the proprietor or their agent | Yes — the registration itself can be set aside |
| (b) Notified encumbrances | What is on the folio binds | No — title stands, subject to them |
| (c) Prior instrument of title | The earlier title prevails | Yes — as between the two titles |
| (d) Omitted or misdescribed easement | The easement binds anyway | No — title stands, burdened |
| (e) Wrong description or boundaries | Not cured by registration | Partly — as to the land wrongly included |
| (f) Short tenancies | Three years or less binds unregistered | No — title stands, subject to the tenancy |
| (g) Section 28 | Tenancy document plus actual occupation binds | No — title stands, subject to it |
| (h) Ministerial lease, licence or authority | Unregistrable grants bind | No — title stands, subject to them |
| (i) Rates, taxes, statutory charges | Follow the land | No — but they must be paid |
Only (a), (c) and, as to part, (e) can actually take land away from a registered proprietor. The other six leave the title standing and simply preserve an interest against it.
What Mudge closed off
Mudge v Secretary for Lands [1985] PGSC 13; [1985] PNGLR 387 established immediate indefeasibility in Papua New Guinea: registration confers a title free of prior defects, subject only to the section 33 exceptions.
So arguments that a State lease was granted without proper advertisement, or without a Land Board recommendation, or in breach of some step in the Land Act 1996, do not by themselves defeat the registered title once registration has occurred. They may found a claim against those responsible, or against the Assurance Fund — but not recovery of the land from an innocent registered proprietor.
This is why so many PNG land challenges are framed as fraud: it is the only route that reaches an otherwise good registration. And it is why so many fail — irregularity dressed up as fraud is still irregularity.
The position before registration is different
Indefeasibility attaches on registration. Before that moment, the ordinary law applies and a defective dealing can be attacked directly. Two consequences:
- Act fast. If you learn of a dealing you say is invalid, move before it is registered. Lodge a caveat — that is exactly what section 82(a) is for, forbidding the registration of instruments affecting the estate or interest you claim.
- A void dealing should not be registered at all. A transfer of a State lease without Ministerial approval is void under section 128(2) of the Land Act, and an instrument giving effect to it contains matter contrary to law — a ground on which the Registrar may refuse it under section 155. Separately, section 35(4) bars registration unless rent is paid and improvement conditions performed.
The practical routes
- Caveat immediately — stop further dealings. Diarise the three-month lapse: proceedings and written notice to the Registrar.
- Identify which exception you are in. If none, reconsider the claim.
- For fraud — plead specifically, tie the dishonesty to the registered proprietor or their agent, and prove it.
- For a prior title — obtain the full history of both titles from the Registrar and establish the sequence of the instruments.
- For description or boundaries — survey first, then Part XVI amendment.
- For an error in the Register — ask the Registrar to correct under section 161.
- If the land cannot be recovered — pursue damages under Part XV Division 3, payable out of the Assurance Fund, remembering the section 142 exclusion for loss occasioned by breach of trust or default.
- Where the State is a defendant, comply with the Claims By and Against the State Act 1996.
A dispute about who owns customary land is not a challenge to a registered title. It goes to mediation, the Local and Provincial Land Courts and the Land Titles Commission under the Land Disputes Settlement Act — on evidence of custom, not on the Register.
Sources
- Land Registration Act (Chapter 191) — ss 28, 33, 35, 82, 142, 153, 155, 161; Parts XIV, XV and XVI
- Land Act 1996 — ss 127–129
- Mudge v Secretary for Lands [1985] PGSC 13; [1985] PNGLR 387
- Paga No 36 Ltd v Eleadona [2018] PGSC 17; SC1671
- Timothy v Timothy [2022] PGSC 82; SC2282
- Claims By and Against the State Act 1996
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Land Act 1996 and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.