In a tense confrontation, a party waited while a court considered a petition to halt the measures. The case centers on the structural elements of a property and the legality of a demolition order. Members of a family tied to a cluster of four chalets in a coastal district reported that a landowner backed by a company had plans to clear the site. The company claimed to have legally purchased the land, yet a lawsuit was filed with other entities over irregularities in registration. Plaintiffs argue that two parcels share the same cadastral reference, creating confusion about land boundaries and ownership. Alicante City Council processes were cited as part of the administrative backdrop, while a building permit was issued permitting the demolition of indoor facilities on the site including a tennis court, a warehouse, and a swimming pool.
During the recent events, the residents sought to defend the property. They managed to prevent an immediate takeover of the farm one day, yet another day brought claims that the land was being altered and trees and the tennis court were removed. The affected individuals contacted emergency services, though there was little room for rapid on-site analysis. The moment captured by witnesses showed the machinery moving forward despite protest. The situation prompted rapid response from local authorities in the form of a police patrol, which reviewed licensing documents from the relevant urban planning department to verify compliance with municipal rules and licensing requirements.
Residents living on Costa Blanca street number 50 affirmed that the parcel had belonged to their parents since the 1960s. They expressed confusion at how the firm leading the project could own a property about a kilometer away without a clear registration number, even though the cadastral reference appeared to match their land. This mismatch prompted formal concerns about title and registration as the case progressed toward court challenges. It is noted that the property in question is tied to a larger municipal and regional planning framework that governs land use, permits, and adjudication of property disputes. [Citation: Local land registry and court filings consult summary]
Petitions for cancellation and ownership validation
The affected parties filed actions before the Alicante First Instance courts to address the conflicting claims. The suits pursue recognition of legitimate ownership and a cancellation of the registration asserted by the commercial company. A second avenue seeks to preserve the original ownership rights of the residents and the farm while challenging the transfer or registration recorded in the company’s name. The legal strategy reflects a concern about conflicting cadastral data and the potential impact on property rights as the case unfolds. [Citation: Alicante judiciary records]
As the legal process unfolds, witnesses observed continued demolition work on the site. Residents hope that an injunction may be granted to suspend further proceedings on the property while the court reviews the ownership documents and registration entries. A separate thread in the matter involves the intent of the purchasing entity to operate in good faith, with a deed recorded in April of the year prior to the dispute, and a public registry entry that serves as the basis for a surface-area calibration. The parties involved have also stated that the overall property area, according to cadastral records, is disputed by a notable margin. [Citation: Property registry notes]
The business entity responsible for the works explains that ownership was established in good faith and cites the public deed and subsequent registry actions as the basis for their assertion of control over the land. They claim that the surface discrepancy prompted a formal process to align the surface area with current cadastral data. The documentation indicates an original area measurement and a proposed adjustment to reflect the actual extent of the site. [Citation: Corporate filings and cadastral notices]
Ultimately, the situation highlights how land registration and cadastral references can become flashpoints when property boundaries, ownership rights, and municipal permits intersect. The outcome will hinge on judicial review of the registration entries, the accuracy of cadastral data, and the validity of the permits issued for demolition. The case underscores the importance of transparent land transfer processes and the need for precise boundary documentation when multiple parcels are involved and the cadastral reference appears to align with different plots. [Citation: Municipal planning records]