← The land

Farm PAR-000159

Part of Rietfontein No. 12

Rietfontein No. 12 Ptn 1

1/12 on the cadastre · on record 1958 · show on the map

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

Farm number
No. 12
Portion
1
Also recorded as
Rietfonteinthis projectRietefonteinSRC-436, 2023 valuation roll - which spells the other two rows of the same farm Rietfontein, so the roll disagrees with itself here
On the cadastre
1/12, portionregistered as MINNIES KRAAL
District
Prince Albert
Modern surveyed area
2490.5 ha

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. 52 km from Klaarstroom.

What the record holds, in order

  1. May 1958 document SG diagram 5774/58
    T/A 7577/1959
  2. undated boundary change subdivision: from Rietfontein No. 12

Bordered by, as the diagram names them

Also bordered by, as the modern cadastre draws it

Ground that touches this farm on the Surveyor-General's current polygons and that none of the diagrams held here names. Derived from the geometry, not read off a document.

Documents

catalogued, no scan held
Surveyor-General diagram, 5774/58, May 1958
SCAN165 12 1.jpg

Cadastre

Surveyor-General diagram index for this parcel

Surveyor-General diagram index for the whole farm — where the original survey of this ground sits.

Research notes

[4 Aug 2026, FRANS + cadastre] Created after Frans pointed at the Surveyor-General's viewer: “antjiesfontein is 14, minnieskraal is 12. daar is 3 dele, deel 2 in blou”. Farm 12 - this project's RIET FONTEIN No. 12, renamed MINNIES KRAAL in the modern cadastre - is today held as three parcels, and the model carried only the whole farm. All three are WSTATUS='C', current, so match_cadastre.py places them from the farm and portion number without a pin. Parent: PAR-000156. AN ARITHMETIC DISCREPANCY, RECORDED RATHER THAN EXPLAINED AWAY: the three pieces come to 13 440,9 ha while the cadastre's own whole-farm polygon for 12 is 12 957,1 ha - 3,7% more. Our 1868 diagram gives 15 167 morgen 520 sq roods = 12 991,0 ha, which sits with the whole-farm figure, not with the sum of the parts. So either the whole-farm outline is an older or generalised shape, or the portions overlap at their shared edges, or a piece was re-surveyed. Not resolved here. [TO VERIFY]

[10 Aug 2026] RENAMED FROM MINNIES KRAAL TO RIETFONTEIN, ON THE FARM'S OWN DIAGRAMS. Two Surveyor-General sheets title farm 12 Rietfontein and neither calls it Minnies Kraal: SG 5774/58 of May 1958 [SRC-350], 'Gedeelte 1 van die plaas RIETFONTEIN Nr 12', and SG 8388/1994 [SRC-352/353], 'PORTION 2 OF THE FARM RIETFONTEIN NO. 12'. Thirty-six years apart, two surveyors, one name. THE CADASTRE CALLS FARM 12 'MINNIES KRAAL' AND ALSO CALLS FARM 112 'MINNIES KRAAL', which is where this model took the wrong name from - see LEAD-0147. This closes LEAD-0085, which asked exactly this question. This row read 'Minnies Kraal Portion 1 (No. 12 Ptn 1)' until today. THE 1958 SHEET'S OWN BOUNDARY LIST: Restant van Lammers Kraal, the Restant of Rietfontein itself, Restant van Spreeu Fontein, and Klein Waterval, with the Grootrivier running through. The extent on the sheet is amended and both readings are kept on SRC-350; it is not resolved here.

[13 Aug 2026] Renamed to the one form this model uses for every portion - the portion's own name, then the parent farm, its number and the portion in brackets - so that a name is legible in a list, a search result and a map popup without the reader having to know which farm number is which. It read "Rietfontein Portion 1 (No. 12 Ptn 1)" before. Nothing about the ground changed.

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

Open questions

What the record is missing

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.