Land regulation developed between 1918 and 1940 helped bring clarity to ownership and made farms more viable, legal scholar Triinu Rennu concludes in her doctoral thesis defended at the University of Tartu.

One of the young Republic of Estonia's greatest challenges was establishing viable farms on former manor lands. Land was the main source of livelihood, and there was, figuratively speaking, a true hunger for land. Because manor lands were insufficient to meet demand, the centuries‑old fragmented land‑use patterns had to be reorganized after land was transferred to direct cultivators. Existing farms were made more economically viable, and better‑organized land use made it possible to establish new farms.

Land regulation is often seen merely as the technical re‑plotting of parcels, though in reality it was much more. During land regulation, land use was reorganized, landowners were identified, and the newly formed land units were entered into the land register. The work done a century ago laid the foundation for compact land parcels and clear ownership relations that today seem self‑evident.

Fragmented strip lands

The main goal of land regulation during Estonia's first independence period was to overcome the historically developed, inefficient land‑ownership and land‑use structure and replace it with economically viable farm management.

A major obstacle to agricultural development was the prevalence of strip lands, especially on Saaremaa island. For example, a 40‑hectare farm could consist of as many as 160 separate plots. Educator Victor Neggo described a Saaremaa farm whose 14,2 hectares of meadow were divided into 82 narrow strips. The strips were intermingled with neighboring farms' lands, and the farmer could not mow an entire swath without crossing into a neighbor's property.

According to Neggo, a farmer lying down to rest on his own land might have his torso on his property, but his head and feet already extending into neighbors' meadows. Such fragmented land use increased labor and time costs, complicated road and drainage construction, and hindered the adoption of modern agricultural methods.

On 4 March 1926, the Riigikogu adopted the Land Regulation Act. It regulated the reorganization of private land use—referred to at the time as "relocation of land ownership"—with the aim of ensuring economic efficiency and higher profitability.

In addition to consolidating strip lands around farm buildings, the law had another important task: reorganizing communal village lands, in Petserimaa and the areas east of Narva that had been incorporated into Estonia under the Tartu Peace Treaty. This meant replacing communal land ownership with private ownership and integrating these territories into Estonia's legal system.

European principles

Although the 1926 Land Regulation Act was largely based on the Russian Empire's 1911 law, its principles originated from European legal traditions, especially Austria, Germany, and Denmark. The aim was to reduce land fragmentation, create economically viable farms, and increase agricultural productivity. To achieve this, a public land‑regulation procedure was implemented through newly established two‑tier land‑regulation institutions.

If necessary, re‑plotting could be carried out compulsorily. Alongside economic goals, the process had to ensure fairness and legal correctness, including land valuation and registration of results in the land register.

Local land‑regulation commissions (later land offices) reviewed land‑use plans, resolved objections, and made decisions confirmed by the central land‑regulation commission. The commissions included land surveyors and were chaired by a judge, combining technical, economic, and legal expertise. This allowed complex land‑ownership and land‑use issues to be resolved while protecting landowners' rights.

The system proved effective, and the authority of land‑regulation institutions was gradually expanded. For example, a new land‑regulation law entered into force by decree in 1937. It empowered the institutions to resolve all rural boundary disputes, determine access routes and conditions, and certify ownership transfers when needed for dividing common lands.

Regulation vs. sale

Land regulation was clearly distinguished from buying, selling, and exchanging land. Ordinary transactions could resolve relations between individual landowners but could not reorganize land use across an entire region. For that, land regulation was used, with re‑plotting based on land value.

In a transaction, land passed from one owner to another; in land regulation, the owner remained the same, but the boundaries, shape, or location of their land could change. This meant the owner received land equivalent in value even if its boundaries or location differed. Fragmented plots were consolidated into larger, more manageable units.

A land surveyor's task was to mark new boundaries on the ground, but surveying itself was not land regulation. This approach was much simpler and cheaper for landowners than re‑registering each parcel through separate notarial transactions.

A reliable land register

One of the most important legal outcomes of land regulation was the establishment of clear ownership relations. Although the 1889 judicial reform made land‑register entries mandatory, the registers often did not reflect reality. Land used for generations and land transactions were frequently based on oral agreements or informal household contracts and thus never entered into the land register.

By the late 1920s, only about one‑third of Estonia's land parcels were registered under their actual owners. The problem was so extensive that the Ministry of Justice's codification department drafted a bill to register unrecorded parcels, though it was never adopted.

If land regulation had relied solely on land‑register data, actual land use would have diverged even further from the registered situation, creating confusion and making land‑use organization even less efficient. Therefore, land regulation was based on actual possession and use, and only afterward were the reorganized land units entered into the land register.

Thus, land regulation aligned actual land use with legal records and made the land register reliable. It also created a unified ownership base that proved crucial during Estonia's post‑independence property reform.

Beyond increasing farms' economic viability, land regulation served other state goals. It compensated for land‑ownership losses caused by border changes, established a unified ownership system across Estonia, and enabled the creation of new farms on land freed through more efficient land‑use organization.

In this way, land regulation became an important instrument of state land policy. It supported landowners' economic resilience, fostered a loyal citizenry, and helped ensure social stability.

Triinu Rennu defended her doctoral thesis, "Land Regulation Law as a State Land‑Policy Instrument for Organizing Property Relations and Modernizing Land Use in the Republic of Estonia (1918–1940)", on 9 June at the University of Tartu. The thesis was supervised by Professor Marju Luts‑Sootak. Opponents were PhD Paris Pin‑Yu Chen of the University of Birmingham and Dr. iur. Priidu Pärna.