Case Number

CA 103/63

Date Decided

7-11-1963

Decision Type

Appellate

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Under a road construction scheme. the local authority planned to construct a road across the appellant's land. Notice was sent to the latter, asking him to vacate the land affected and move the fences and that in default the local authority would do so at his expense. The appellant refused to comply and informed the respondent that he would deny it and its agents access to the land. Some days afterwards, local authority employees tore down the fences involved, uprooted trees and began to lay a road close to the appellant's dwelling. The appellant called the police who did not interfere but merely noted what had occurred. The appellant later repaired the fences but they were pulled down again and in the presence of the police the uprooting of trees and other works continued by the local authority. The appellant sued for vacation of the land, an injunction and damages. He was unsuccessful but leave was given to appeal. He appealed in respect of vacation and the injunction which had been refused.

Held. The rule against self-help and taking the law into one's own hands is basic and absent express provision in that regard may not be departed from. The relevant law only provides for compensation and not for forcibly taking possession of land against the objections of the owner. Possession, even if rightful, can under Israeli law in the given circumstances, be obtained only through court.

Keywords

Administrative Law -- Discretion, Property

Download

Share

COinS