P'NINAT MISHPAT: REGULATION OF LAND RIGHTS IN A SETTLEMENT EXTENSION – PART V

Case: The plaintiffs (=pl) used to live in an unrecognized settlement extension (=SE), left SE in 2013, and returned in 2016, against the will of the settlement committee (=def). Def instructed pl as to the boundaries of their lot, but pl expanded them and ignored warnings to desist. In 2023, def started preparing neighboring lots for new units, including areas to which pl had asserted control, and destroyed some of pl’s infrastructure. [This installment’s issues:] Pl claims that def must pay for damage to many of his assets that were in and around his property. Def demands that pl be forced to pay municipal taxes like other members of def. Pl refuse because def’s banishment of them prevents their full use of def’s resources, and because def ignores their demand for public disclosure of municipal spending.

Ruling: It is true that in regard to the major question of pl’s right to expand beyond def’s permission, pl did not have the right. However, def was required to see the legal process through and not start work in a manner that caused damage to pl’s assets and possessions in the area of their work. Therefore, there are grounds for certain damage payments. The claims though are problematic, because they are “wholesale,” with little documentation on what was damaged and what they were worth. While it would be best to bring in an expert to do these evaluations, the relatively small amount of viable claims makes it unfeasible to spend the sides’ money on an expert. Beit din will have to estimate.

One type of demand is that a damaged element be returned and fixed, such as a damaged sewage line. In that case, for example, a new permanent line is going to be built in accordance with the correct position of pl’s home. Therefore, it makes no sense in many of those cases to reconstruct that which will soon be unviable.

There is a halachic obligation to pay municipal taxes (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 163:1). This is true even if a member of the community does not benefit from all that the municipality provides (Rama ad loc. 3). All residents certainly must pay for matters of security, local batei knesset, electricity, water, and internet, among other things. While the Rama writes (CM 163:6) that those who do not need help from the lords to collect debts do not have to pay for that service, the S’ma (163:32) distinguishes between services that are by their nature public and those that are private. Since pl did not prove that there are relevant services that they are excluded from wrongly, they are not able to receive an alleviation from the fees.

On the one hand, while those in charge of public funds are not absolutely required to make an exact accounting, it is generally recommended they do so to prevent doubts (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 257:2). Therefore, we expect def to be more forthcoming in this matter. However, lack of full disclosure does not excuse pl from paying municipal taxes.

With this we conclude our treatment of this important dispute, which touched on many general communal principles.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend