1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of forest land plots from the illegal possession of individuals in favor of the state.
2. The appellate court, in reversing the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the disputed land plots belonged to the forest land and were illegally transferred to private ownership, in violation of the procedure for changing the designated purpose and without the consent of the forestry authority; the defendants, as acquirers, had the opportunity to know about the illegality of acquiring these lands, given their afforestation, and the recovery of these plots does not violate the proportionality of interference with the right of ownership. The court also took into account that the prosecutor’s office applied to the court within the statute of limitations after detecting violations. **:** The court departed from the previous position regarding the state’s obligation to know about the state of its property rights, noting that in this case the defendants had the opportunity to detect the illegality of the acquisition of land.
3. The cassation court upheld the decision of the appellate court, confirming the legality of the recovery of land plots.
