Appeal to Supreme Court against Confiscation of Land in Lajoun Belonging to 300 Arab Families in Umm al-Fahem
Appeal filed in 5/07, against a 3/07 decision of the Nazareth District Court to reject a lawsuit filed on behalf of approximately 200 Arab citizens of Israel regarding the ownership of the lands of Lajoun. The District Court rejected the claimants' main argument that the confiscation is fundamentally invalid and that the land must be returned to its original owners, because it has not been used for "essential settlement and development needs," in accordance with the order issued by the Minister of Finance in 1953. The District Court also ordered the Justice Ministry to register the land in the name of the Development Agency, a state body. The lands of Lajoun were previously part of Umm al-Fahem in the center of Israel. The plot was confiscated, along with other plots of land totaling 34,600 dunams, on 15 November 1953 according to an order of the Finance Minister under Article 2 of the Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law - 1953 for "essential settlement and development needs." In its decision, the District Court focused on the interpretation of the term "settlement" used in the confiscation order, accepting the Development Agency's argument that it is possible to give very broad interpretations of this term and decided that the current use of the land as a man-made forest containing an industrial facility belonging to the "Mekorot" water company are compatible with the term "settlement."
The appellants argued that the District Court had erred in deciding that planting a man-made forest falls within the definition of a "settlement needs," as this interpretation is broader than and incompatible with the definitions contained in Israeli law. Further, it legitimizes the illegal seizure of land and violates the landowners' constitutional right to property, as guaranteed by the Basic Laws of Israel. The appellants further argued that the land has not been used for "essential settlement and development needs" for over 50 years, and therefore the Finance Minister's order is, or was, inappropriate, or issued for false or unacceptable reasons. In addition, even if the confiscation were declared legal, the state's failure to address the alleged essential settlement and development needs since 1953 indicates that there is no need to construct residential settlements on the land. Thus, the public need is no longer valid and the land should therefore be returned to its owners.
C.A. (Civil Appeal) 4067/07, Jabareen, et al. v. The State of Israel, et al.
