It is possible that some ordinary land surfaces may be owned by an individual. This may be the case because this person is the original explorer, buyer or land assistant under the Densit, or because he or she is the only survivor of a larger group of original landers. Alternatively, the individual may be a chief, and according to the custom of that territory, the land is considered the sole property of the chief. If the country belongs to only one person, that individual owner is empowered, on a bespoke basis, to make decisions about the use of that country. In such a situation, there are no practical difficulties in convening a meeting of landowners, nor of them who make a unanimous decision that arises when there are many co-owners. However, the question remains whether the individual owner has relevant information or materials and has sufficient understanding or understanding of this information and materials to make a sound decision about the use of this land. Nor would I suggest that such a complete removal of the administrative powers of tariff holders is necessary or desirable. It is possible to regulate and support a more limited species, which addresses the most pressing problems of ordinary land management. In some countries, there are huge land of ordinary land that is used exclusively for livelihoods and for which the usual farming methods are currently appropriate. It is only in areas where ordinary land is established or commercially developed and in areas where there are long-term ownership conflicts that the usual farming methods have proved insufficient and that there is an urgent need for them to be regulated or supported in a complementary manner.  Part I, Land (Facilitation of Dealings) Act 1970, Cook Islands There is already legislation in Fiji and Kiribati Legislation allowing a minister to revoke the rights of a rights holder after a certain absence. But in Fiji, this requires first a request from members of the landowners` unit, which is very unlikely, because no one wants to be the cause of a parent who loses rights to the country.
In Kiribati, the result is that the country is necessarily acquired by the state, and no minister of a democratically elected government will likely attempt to take such a step to deprive landowners of their lands, which are certainly resentful and hostile and which are costing votes in the next elections. It is therefore not surprising that this legislation has rarely been applied in Fiji or Kiribati. A lease is a very practical way to allow the use of ordinary land for commercial purposes. It grants the taker sole detention for a fixed or identifiable period, sets out the conditions and conditions under which the detention can be detained and provides customs holders with an irreplaceable fixed period of income, without infringing their final property rights. Assuming that the law is in a position to take reasonable steps to determine the rights of ordinary countries and settle disputes over those rights, should the law go further and regulate the way rights holders use their country? Secondly, it should be mentioned that, in this document, the term “colonial” is generally used to refer to a condition of constitutional dependence, whether technical or legal, that of a colony, a protectorate, a protected state or a sphere of influence.