Jansenskraal No. 104 Ptn 6

· on record 2016 · show on the map

The farm's own history, the grant, the original survey, sits on that page.

Farm number: No. 104
Portion: 6
District: Prince Albert
Extent, as the diagram states it: 1026.3570 ha

This parcel has no matched survey polygon, so it cannot be drawn on the map. That is a gap in the cadastre match, not an absence from the record.

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. Not yet placed on the map.

parcel Cut out of Jansenskraal No. 104
parcel Cut out of Botterkraal (Jansenskraal No. 104 Ptn 2)

What the record holds, in order

2016 boundary change subdivided_into: from Botterkraal (Jansenskraal No. 104 Ptn 2)

Research notes

[14 Aug 2026 inbox, SRC-439/DOC-0298] FROM THE DEDUCTION TABLE on the back of dgm 1319/1896. Cut off Portion 2 on survey record 836/2016, diagram 1570/2016, transfer 136029/2017, marked D.C. The front's map face labels it simply "Portion 6" and the table gives it no name either, so this row carries none - a number is what the record holds. Extent is in HECTARES because the 2016 survey is metric, unlike every other line in the same table. NO POLYGON YET.

The research behind this page, kept separate from it: dated working notes, open questions, and what is not yet settled.

What the record is missing

Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Jansenskraal No. 104 Ptn 6 is in the model, and carries no ownership record of any kind, not a grant, not a transfer, not an occupation.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's diagram for the farm number names the grantee and the date; the deed reference on it opens the transfer chain.

Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand, each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data. The whole set is on the questions page.