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

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), with the help of pressure from the regional council (=rc). 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 issue:] Pl claims that rc agreed to their land plans without presenting limitations and is only now caving in due to pressure from strong forces within def.

Ruling: Pl claims that rc never sent maps limiting homes to a half a dunam. Beit din rejects this claim. Rc has a file for pl’s property, with much detailed documentation, including the maps in question. This file was not opened by itself. The indications that pl were aware of what was planned for them is corroborated by rc’s engineer’s (=rce) testimony. While there were some difficulties with rce’s testimony, it makes clear the basic fact that there was a discussion between rc and pl at the relevant times.

While rc lacks authority to allocate land without permission from those who control it, since it is part of rc’s responsibility to prepare not yet recognized settlements for normalization, that includes preventing anarchy in land allocation that prevents such normalization. As mentioned in the past, pl used rc’s influence to receive their lot in the first place.

Rc presented a clear stance to beit din that they were against anyone having a lot larger than 700 square meters. Pl claim that this is a change in their longstanding policy in regard to pl, and is based on political pressure. Beit din sees no change in rc’s policy, which was well known and finds expression in rc’s file on pl.

Rc claims that the area south of pl’s property was set aside as a public open space, and pl claim that it was agreed that they would have special rights to usage there. There was a meeting at which it was agreed that a rock retaining wall at the area’s boundary with pl’s property would be built by def, and be paid for by pl. Pl claim that at a meeting they were promised that anything above the rock formation would be for their full use, and rc’s representative to that meeting refused to come and testify what transpired. Pl claims that this proves that they are correct and the representative is intimidated by def. Beit din rejects that claim. One needs strong grounds to establish that one who refuses to testify does so because of a litigant’s intimidation (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 92:6). In this case, the representative is a powerful person who should not feel intimidated by def. Although rc had suggested a compromise regarding this area, this is not binding, as it just represents what rc could accept from a planning perspective. Regarding a public area, the people of the public (def) need to accept it. Joint usage of the area would have required cooperation between def and pl, which we see is untenable, due to the enmity between them.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend