To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Eminent domain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eminent domain (United States, Philippines), land acquisition (India, Malaysia[1][2], Singapore), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Hong Kong, Uganda), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (France, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Portugal, Spain, Chile, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Panama) is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use only if the government provides fair compensation to the property owner. However, this power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.[3]

In the Anglo-American historical context, property taken could be used only by the government taking the property in question. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads, government buildings and public utilities. However, in the mid-20th century, a new application of eminent domain was pioneered, in which the government could take the property and transfer it to a private third party. This was initially done only to "blighted" property, on the principle that such properties had a negative impact upon surrounding property owners, but was later expanded to allow the taking of any private property when the new 3rd party owner could develop the property in such a way as to bring in increased tax revenues to the government.

Some jurisdictions require that the taker make an offer to purchase the subject property, before resorting to the use of eminent domain. However, once the property is taken and the judgment is final, the condemnor owns it in fee simple, and may put it to uses other than those specified in the eminent domain action.

Takings may be of the subject property in its entirety (total take) or in part (part take), either quantitatively or qualitatively (either partially in fee simple or, commonly, an easement, or any other interest less than the full fee simple title).

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    32 093
    14 326
  • Eminent Domain - Full Video
  • Eminent Domain


The citizens have a deep concern about eminent domain being misused. Well back up, we've never taken anybody's home. They were scared, they were afraid, you mean we're going to lose our job? Abuses such as these happen and it's important to understand that. When they go home, that's their place of refuge, that's their sanctuary. That's sacred to them. It should be over, but it's not. A man's home is his castle. Okay, I know it sounds kind of cliche, but for anyone who actually owns a home, it really is true. Homeowners take great pride in the fact that they can do whatever they want with their homes, without interference from anyone else, including the government. But are they right? In fact, there's something in the Constitution called "Eminent Domain," that gives governments the power to take your property- even if you don't want to sell. Eminent domain? Define eminent domain? Eminent domain? I'm gonna let him speak first. Like this is mine, right here, right now. Do you know what eminent domain is? Isn't that where the government can take whatever they want? Is that like M&Ms, M&M's domain? Eminent domain is the concept that allows government to take property, and pay you for it. The Founding Fathers wanted to create a nation of free people, and they wrote the Constitution to protect individual rights from government power. The founders believed that one of the most important individual rights is the right to own property. But the Founders also made an exception to this rule. The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that governments may take private property, but only under certain conditions: The property must be put to a public use, and the property owners must be provided just compensation. This practice is called Eminent Domain. An example of this is the construction of the Interstate Highway System. Eminent domain was used extensively whenever property owners would refuse to sell their property to the government. Throughout most of our country's history, local governments have used the power of eminent domain to take private property, in order to convert the property to public uses, like schools, hospitals and roads. But in the 1950s, the city of Washington, DC made plans to use eminent domain for a different reason. The city wanted to force out property owners, and tear down old buildings and houses, in order to build a nicer community. Some property owners objected, arguing that this kind of urban renewal project was not a legitimate public use. In 1954, the US Supreme Court voted in favor of the city, and Washington, DC officials used eminent domain to rebuild the run-down neighborhood from scratch. Ever since then, governments have used eminent domain for more than just public uses, like roads and schools; they've also used eminent domain to transfer property-- from one private owner, to another private owner... the name of economic development. I think a city has a responsibility to maintain their housing stock, and to make sure that people live in good quality homes. Bruce Broadwater is a city councilman and former mayor of Garden Grove, California. Redevelopment feeds on itself, I mean basically it pays itself back. And it's just such a great tool to use, and eminent domain is a part of that. Unfortunately, over the history of our country, governments have taken to use eminent domain for private uses... Steven Greenhut is a journalist in southern California who has written extensively about eminent domain use. take private property from homeowners such as these, and give it to big developers. And "due process" means reading about the project in the newspaper after it's already been approved. And "just compensation?" Well, cities often short-change the owners, they give low-ball offers, don't pay the lawyer fees, They call it a tool in their arsenal, which is kind of like calling a machine gun put someone's head a tool-- but that's the basic idea. The use of eminent domain is a delicate tool, but it is a tool...and it helps keep a community clean, it helps keep a community vibrant. It's a good tool and definitely, I don't think it should be taken away. We're not talking about unsafe, terrible neighborhoods. We're just talking about neighborhoods that some developer might covet to build something that pays more in tax revenue than is currently existing. If you think eminent domain sounds complicated, you're right-- it is! So let's look at how it works in real life. We met a few people whose lives have been affected by eminent domain, and found out how much they care about their homes and businesses. To them, the idea of property rights is more than just a legal concept, it's also very personal. All across the country, cities are using eminent domain for redevelopment. In Arcadia, California, Manny Romero has owned a popular 50s-style diner for the past 10 years. The city wants to use eminent domain to tear down his diner, so that a neighboring Mercedes dealership can expand its parking lot, which would increase tax revenues for the city. I've been coming to this restaurant for about 50 years. I've been in southern California for 35 years. I own Rod's Grill for 10 years. The waiters, waitresses, cooks, they've been so good, you know, to not just myself and my family, but to everybody else in Arcadia. It's always been kind of a family place. I like their shakes, their shakes are really good. The city wants to see this torn down and become a car dealership. Because they'll get more tax money from the bigger business. The fundamentals of eminent domain is it's supposed to be only for public use. And then I realized that the city is saying this is to expand Mercedes Benz. And I said, "Wait a minute, this is not the proper way of using eminent domain." And I told them I'm not going to sell it because they are not telling me they want this property to put a school, library or any public service use. They want it to tear down, just so they can park Mercedes Benz. What about us? The citizens of Arcadia have a deep concern about eminent domain being misused. I am in debt for a lot of money. My savings is running out. Most of my staff that is here, has been here for a long, long time. All these people will be out a job. I hope no one ever has to go through what I've been going through. This is America. This is a country with free enterprise. You have all the rights to own your property; your own home, your own business. You have the right to build your American dream. Princess Wells owns a home and business in the seaside community of Riviera Beach, Florida. Mayor Michael Brown and city officials, are leading efforts to redevelop 800 acres of waterfront property where Princess Wells and 5,000 other people live. My house, we've lived there for over 25 years. Hard work. Children. Love. We built the house in approximately 30 days. When you build it yourself, it's awesome, it's important to you. It's a nice, quaint, middle-class neighborhood. We are like prime property, you know, we are so close to the ocean. It's wrong to be able to come out and take it, because I worked hard for it. If they take it by eminent domain, therefore they won't have to pay us what our house is worth. And they can take that same property- and they can sell it for millions. And I had no idea that one day they'd just, would not want me to be here, just because I don't have enough money! If redevelopment plans go forth, Princess Wells will lose her home, and her business as well. If I have to move my business, I'll have to do everything from ground level one, all over again. Mayor Brown has stated that they are going to continue and that they are not going to stop. The threat of eminent domain still looms. Now let's take a look at the Susette Kelo case. This case made it all the way to the Supreme Court in 2005. It sparked a huge debate about the importance of property rights. The case involves homeowner Susette Kelo and her neighbors versus the city of New London, Connecticut. When I first came here with the realtor, I walked in the front door-- it was like I had been here all of my life. It was just an overwhelming feeling when I walked in this place. In 1998, the city condemned 115 properties in order to build a private health club and office buildings to support the development of a local pharmaceutical plant. Fifteen property owners did not want to sell, so the city used eminent domain to seize their properties. There were-- if I can count them-- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8-- there were 9 houses spanning this street here. Everybody knew everybody, if you went to work, the neighbors watched your kids... and that's the way it was. In the spring of 1998, the city of New London came out with a municipal development plan that said that the homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood would be taken by eminent domain. They thought that they could place something here that would bring more taxes to the city. This was here, the penny candy store. And the grinder shop, this was the Chivals's deli. When this first started, there were 90 properties in this neighborhood. The first ones that sold were the absentee landlords. And then after that, they went after the elderly. It was the day before Thanksgiving, that they came to my house with a sheriff. And they handed my mom the condemnation papers, basically condemning the property. And this here is where the Pascalini's lived. Mrs. Pascalini was a hundred years old when they made her leave last summer. A hundred years old. And after that they came after us. We bought billboards, we wrote letters to the editor, put ads in the paper, we went door to door, we had petitions, we went to Hartford, we met with the historic people, we met with everybody- trying to-- not stop the development, understand. We never wanted to stop it, we just simply wanted to stay. He had an autobody shop. They took that by eminent domain -- they tore that down. So, not only did he lose his home, he lost his business as well. We fought for 9 long years. And unfortunately, the US Supreme Court ruled against us, which I was really shocked. They basically just stripped everybody's property rights away from them. Eminent domain is supposed to be used for your typical, you know-- to build a school, a reservoir, a police department, you know, to widen the roads. But not for economic development. Now they're saying they could take your property if someone can generate more property taxes than you. Is that right? Wherever we go, we would be fortunate to... ...we would be fortunate to ever find people, like the people that were here, in our lives again. Surely good people. With the whole country watching, the Supreme Court made a very controversial decision. In a 5 to 4 split decision, the Court upheld New London's right to use eminent domain. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the decision. In it, he wrote: But four out of the nine judges disagreed. They said that if eminent domain can be used for any public purpose, then all property is at risk-- especially property owned by poor people without political influence. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is one of the judges who disagreed with this decision. She wrote: The Kelo decision was a victory for city planners, but many people believe the decision gave the government too much power. You don't take stuff that doesn't belong to you. And that's the way I was raised, that's the way I raised my children, and that's the way most people think. You don't take something that doesn't belong to you-- and you certainly don't take people's properties or their homes. These are our homes. So what about your home or mine? Is everyone's home at risk? The use of eminent domain increased dramatically after the Kelo decision. At the same time, concerned citizens across the country began working to reform eminent domain laws. In fact, after the Kelo decision, more than 30 states placed limits on eminent domain use. We have to put property rights first, we have to allow people to be free and live their lives as they choose. And the way to enhance older neighborhoods-- and there are some crummy older neighborhoods-- is to free the market. There are people that think that property has more rights than human beings! There's no reason to let a community become a sewer. We've seen so much of that throughout the United States. As the debate rages on, more and more Americans are asking themselves this basic question: Who should make decisions about how property is used? The people who own the property? Or the government? So what do you think?



The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625,[4] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for supreme lordship) and described the power as follows:

...  The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or those who act for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But, when this is done, the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Condemnors may also take personal property, even intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. Even the taking of a professional sports team's franchise has been held by the California Supreme Court to be within the purview of the "public use" constitutional limitation, although eventually, that taking (of the Oakland Raiders' NFL franchise) was not permitted because it was deemed to violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.[5]

A taking of property must be accompanied by payment of "just compensation" to the [former] owner. In theory, this is supposed to put the owner in the same position "pecuniarily" that he would have been in had his property not been taken. But in practice courts have limited compensation to the property's fair market value, considering its highest and best use. But though rarely granted, this is not the exclusive measure of compensation; see Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States (business losses in temporary takings) and United States v. Pewee Coal Co. (operating losses caused by government operations of a mine seized during World War II). In most takings owners are not compensated for a variety of incidental losses caused by the taking of their property that, though incurred and readily demonstrable in other cases, are deemed by the courts to be noncompensable in eminent domain. The same is true of attorneys' and appraisers fees. But as a matter of legislative grace rather than constitutional requirement some of these losses (e.g., business goodwill) have been made compensable by state legislative enactments, and may be partially covered by provisions of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act.

North America

United States

Most states use the term eminent domain, but some U.S. states use the term appropriation (New York) or expropriation (Louisiana) as synonyms for the exercise of eminent domain powers.[6][7] The term condemnation is used to describe the formal act of exercising this power to transfer title or some lesser interest in the subject property.

The constitutionally required "just compensation" in partial takings is usually measured by fair market value of the part taken, plus severance damages (the diminution in value of the property retained by the owner [remainder] when only a part of the subject property is taken). Where a partial taking provides economic benefits specific to the remainder, those must be deducted, typically from severance damages.[8] The former owners of the property rarely receive full market value because some elements of value are deemed noncompensable in eminent domain law.[citation needed]

The practice of condemnation came to the American colonies with the common law. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the taking be for a "public use" and mandates payment of "just compensation" to the owner.[9]

In federal law, Congress may take private property directly (without recourse to the courts) by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government. In such cases, the property owner seeking compensation must sue the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals.[10] The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of "public use".


In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once a property is taken, an owner is entitled to "be made whole" by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.


In many European nations, the European Convention on Human Rights provides protection from an appropriation of private property by the state. Article 8 of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence" and prohibits interference with this right by the state, unless the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right is expanded by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which states that "Every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions." Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the general or public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes. Settled case-law of ECHR provides that just compensation has to be paid in cases of expropriation.[11]


In France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen similarly mandates just and preliminary compensation before expropriation; and a Déclaration d'utilité publique is commonly required, to demonstrate a public benefit.

Notably, in 1945, by decree of General Charles de Gaulle based on untried[12] accusations of collaboration, the Renault company was expropriated from Louis Renault posthumously and nationalised as Régie Nationale des Usines Renault[12]—without compensation.[13]

England and Wales

After his victory in 1066, William the Conqueror seized virtually all land in England. Although he maintained absolute power over the land, he granted fiefs to landholders who served as stewards, paying fees and providing military services. During the Hundred Years War in the 14th century, Edward III used the Crown's right of purveyance for massive expropriations. Chapter 28 of Magna Carta required that immediate cash payment be made for expropriations. As the king's power was broken down in the ensuing centuries, tenants were regarded as holding ownership rights rather than merely possessory rights over their land. In 1427, a statute was passed granting commissioners of sewers in Lincolnshire the power to take land without compensation. After the early 16th century, however, Parliamentary takings of land for roads, bridges, etc. generally did require compensation. The common practice was to pay 10% more than the assessed value. However, as the voting franchise was expanded to include more non-landowners, the bonus was eliminated. In spite of contrary statements found in some American law, in the United Kingdom, compulsory purchase valuation cases were tried to juries well into the 20th century, such as Attorney-General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd (1919).

In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law, the related term compulsory purchase is used. The landowner is compensated with a price agreed or stipulated by an appropriate person. Where agreement on price cannot be achieved, the value of the taken land is determined by the Upper Tribunal. The operative law is a patchwork of statutes and case law. The principal Acts are the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, the Land Compensation Act 1961, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, part IX of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.


The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany states in its Article 14 (3) that "an expropriation is only allowed for the public good"[14] and just compensation must be made. It also provides for the right to have the amount of the compensation checked by a court.


Espropria, "expropiate". Protest graffiti in Turin
Espropria, "expropiate". Protest graffiti in Turin

Esproprio, or more formally espropriazione per pubblica utilità (literally "expropriation for public utility") in Italy takes place within the frame of civil law, as an expression of the potere ablatorio (ablative power). The law regulating expropriation is the D.P.R. n.327 of 2001,[15] amended by D.Lgs. n.302 of 2002;[16] it supersedes the old expropriation law, the Royal Decree n.2359 of 1865. Also other national and regional laws may apply, not always giving a full compensation to the owner.[17] Expropriation can be total (the whole property is expropriated) or partial; permanent or temporary.

The article 42 of the Italian Constitution and the article 834 of the Italian Civil Code state that a private good can be expropriated for public utility. Furthermore, the article 2 of the Constitution binds Italian citizens to respect their mandatory duties of political, economical and social solidarity.

The implementation of the eminent domain follows two principles:[18]

  • legality: a public institution can exporpriate private goods only in the cases law allowes it and respecting its procedures (following the article 23 of the Italian Constitution);
  • compensation: (art. 42/III) the State must provide a certain amount of money as compensation, which is determined by the law. According to the Italian Constitutional Court, this compensation is not required to be equal to the market value of the expropriated good, although this sum must not be merely symbolic.

Nazionalizzazione ("nationalization"), instead, is provided for by article 43 of the Constitution; it transfers to governmental authority and property a whole industrial sector, if it is deemed to be a natural or de facto monopoly, and an essential service of public utility. The most famous nationalization in Italy was the 1962 nationalization of the electrical power sector.


Article 33.3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 allows forced expropriation ("expropiación forzosa") only where justified on the grounds of public utility or social interest and subject to the payment of appropriate compensation as provided for in law.[19]


Expropriation. The right of state or municipality to buy property when it is determined to be of "particular public interest", is regulated in Expropriationslagen (1972:719).[20] The government purchases the property at an estimated market value plus a 25% compensation. The law also states that the property owner shall not suffer economic harm because of the expropriation.


In Australia, section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution permits the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws."[21] This has been construed as meaning that just compensation may not always include monetary or proprietary recompense, rather it is for the court to determine what is just. It may be necessary to imply a need for compensation in the interests of justice, lest the law be invalidated.[22]

Property subject to resumption is not restricted to real estate as authority from the Federal Court has extended the states' power to resume property to any form of physical property.[citation needed] For the purposes of section 51(xxxi), money is not property that may be compulsorily acquired.[citation needed] (The following is cited by a dead link) A statutory right to sue has been considered "property" under this section.[citation needed]

The Commonwealth must also derive some benefit from the property acquired, that is, the Commonwealth can "only legislate for the acquisition of Property for particular purposes".[23] Accordingly, the power does not extend to allow legislation designed merely to seek to extinguish the previous owner's title.[citation needed] The states and territories' powers of resumption on the other hand are not so limited. The section 43(1) of the Lands Acquisition Act 1998 (NT) grants the Minister the power to acquire land 'for any purpose whatever'.[24] The High Court of Australia interpreted this provision literally, relieving the Territory government of any public purpose limitation on the power.[25] This finding permitted the Territory government to acquire land subject to Native Title, effectively extinguishing the Native Title interest in the land. Kirby J in dissent, along with a number of commentators, viewed this as a missed opportunity to comment on the exceptional nature of powers of resumption exercised in the absence of a public purpose limitation.[26]

The term resumption is a reflection of the fact that, as a matter of Australian law, all land was originally owned by the Crown before it was sold, leased or granted[27] and that, through the act of compulsory acquisition, the Crown is "resuming" possession.

South America


Brazil's expropriation laws are governed by the Presidential Decree No. 3365 of July 21, 1941.[28]


Art. 19, No. 24, of the Chilean Constitution says in part, "In no case may anyone be deprived of his property, of the assets affected or any of the essential faculties or powers of ownership, except by virtue of a general or a special law which authorizes expropriation for the public benefit or the national interest, duly qualified by the legislator. The expropriated party may protest the legality of the expropriation action before the ordinary courts of justice and shall, at all times, have the right to indemnification for patrimonial harm actually caused, to be fixed by mutual agreement or by a sentence pronounced by said courts in accordance with the law."[29]


In Panama, the government must pay a fair amount of money to the owner of the property to be expropriated.



The Constitution originally provided for the right to property under Articles 19 and 31. Article 19 guaranteed to all citizens the right to 'acquire, hold and dispose of property'. Article 31 provided that "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." It also provided that compensation would be paid to a person whose property had been 'taken possession of or acquired' for public purposes. In addition, both the state government as well as the union (federal) government were empowered to enact laws for the "acquisition or requisition of property" (Schedule VII, Entry 42, List III). It is this provision that has been interpreted as being the source of the state's 'eminent domain' powers.[30]

The provisions relating to the right to property were changed a number of times. The 44th amendment act of 1978 deleted the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights.[31] A new article, Article 300-A, was added to the constitution to provide, "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Thus, if a legislature makes a law depriving a person of his property, it will not be unconstitutional. The aggrieved person shall have no right to move the court under Article 32. Thus, the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, though it is still a constitutional right. If the government appears to have acted unfairly, the action can be challenged in a court of law by citizens.[32]

Land acquisition in India is currently governed by The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force from 1 January 2014.[33] Until 2013, land acquisition in India was governed by Land Acquisition Act of 1894.[34] However the new LARR (amendment) ordinance 31 December 2014 diluted many clauses of the original act.[35] The liberalisation of the economy and the Government's initiative to set up special economic zones have led to many protests by farmers and have opened up a debate on the reinstatement of the fundamental right to private property.[36]


Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the government has the power to compulsorily acquire private land at the prevailing market rate for public purposes such as roads, highways, railways, dams, airports, etc.

Other countries

Many countries recognize eminent domain to a much lesser extent than the English-speaking world or do not recognize it at all. Japan, for instance, has very weak eminent domain powers, as evidenced by the high-profile opposition to the expansion of Narita International Airport, and the disproportionately large amounts of financial inducement given to residents on sites slated for redevelopment in return for their agreement to leave, one well-known recent case being that of Roppongi Hills.

There are other countries such as the People's Republic of China that practice eminent domain whenever it is convenient to make space for new communities and government structures. Singapore practices eminent domain under the Land Acquisitions Act, which allows it to carry out its Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme for urban renewal. The Amendments to the Land Titles Act allowed property to be purchased for purposes of urban renewal against an owner sharing a collective title if the majority of the other owners wish to sell and the minority did not. Thus, eminent domain often invokes concerns of majoritarianism.

In the Bahamas, the Acquisition of Land Act operates to permit the acquisition of land where it is deemed likely to be required for a public purpose. The land can be acquired by private agreement or compulsory purchase (s7 of the Act). Under section 24 of the Acquisition of Land Act, the purchaser may purchase the interest of the mortgagee of any land acquired under the Act. To do so, the purchaser must pay the principal sum and interest, together with costs and charges plus 6 months’ additional interest.

Since the 1990s, the Zimbabwean government under Robert Mugabe has seized a great deal of land and homes of mainly white farmers in the course of the land reform movement in Zimbabwe. The government argued that such land reform was necessary to redistribute the land to Zimbabweans dispossessed of their lands during colonialism – these farmers were never compensated for this seizure.[37]

See also


  1. ^ "Land Acquisition" (PDF). Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  2. ^ "Land acquisition's chequered history". The Star. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  3. ^ "Eminent Domain". The Free Dictionary. Farlex, Inc. Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  4. ^ Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2004). Constitutional Law (Seventh ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson West. p. 263. ISBN 0-314-14452-8.
  5. ^ "City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1982) 32 C3d 60". Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  6. ^ "New York Code, Public Lands, Art. 2, Sec. 27, Appropriations". The New York Senate. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  7. ^ "Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 19, Expropriation". Louisiana State Legislature. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  8. ^ Larson, Aaron. "Eminent Domain". ExpertLaw. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  9. ^ "The Evolution of Eminent Domain: A Remedy for Market Failure or an Effort to Limit Government Power and Government Failure?" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  10. ^ See, e.g., "Linggi v. Garovotti, 45 Cal.2d 20, 286 P.2d 15 (1955)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 13 May 2018.
  11. ^ See James v.the UK, decision of ECHR dated by 21 February 1986, para 54.
  12. ^ a b "Louis Renault and the shame of a nation". London: The Daily Telegraph, Ian Morton. 14 May 2005.
  13. ^ "Foreign News: Was He Murdered?". Time Magazine. Feb 6, 1956.
  14. ^ "Art. 14 GG". Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  15. ^ "D.P.R. 327/2001". Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  16. ^ "Dlgs 302/2002". Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  17. ^ In other countries (France, Germany, Great Britain, Germany) is provided fair compensation according to the free market value both for regular expropriations or for absolutely unlawful occupations: Buonomo, Giampiero (2003). "Occupazione acquisitiva: nodo irrisolto nonostante le modifiche al Testo unico". Diritto&Giustizia edizione online.  – via Questia (subscription required)
  18. ^ Assini, N.-Tescaroli, N. (2003). Manuale pratico dell'espropriazione. Padua.
  19. ^ Constitución Española de 1978 Art 33 part 3
  20. ^ "Expropriationslag (1972:719) (ExprL)". Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  21. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-04-11. Retrieved 2009-09-24.
  22. ^ "Andrews v Howell (1941) 65 CLR 255". Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  23. ^ Australian Constitutional Commission, Final Report of the Constitutionali Commission vol 1 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1988): 600. ISBN 0-644-06897-3.
  24. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2011-01-14.
  25. ^ "Griffiths v Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment [2008] HCA 20 (15 May 2008)". Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  26. ^ Reale, Andreana (2009). "Assisted Theft: Compulsory land acquisition for private benefit in Australia and the US". Alternative Law Journal. Melbourne: Legal Service Bulletin Co-operative Ltd. 34 (3): 147–51.
  27. ^ Samantha J. Hepburn, Principles of Property Law, 2nd ed. (Newport, NSW: Cavendish, 2001):45-46. ISBN 1-876905-08-5.
  28. ^ "DECRETO-LEI Nº 3.365, DE 21 DE JUNHO DE 1941". Presidência da República. Retrieved 24 October 2017.
  29. ^ "Chile" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  30. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2008-10-15.
  31. ^ "The Constitution (Amendment)". Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  32. ^ Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics, p. A-33
  33. ^ "The Land Acquisition, Rehabilation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 – Full Text of Bill". Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
  34. ^ Bhattacharyya, Debjani (2015). "The history of eminent domain in colonial thought and legal practice, Special Section Artic… 9 Pages The history of eminent domain in colonial thought and legal practice". Economic and Political Weekly. 50 (50).
  35. ^ "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance" (PDF). Prsindia.irg. 2014. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  36. ^ Mahapatra, Dhananjay (28 February 2009). "Should right to property return?". The Times Of India.
  37. ^ Dancaescu, Nick. Note. Land reform in Zimbabwe. 15 Fla. J. Int'l L. 615 (2003).

External links

This page was last edited on 2 November 2018, at 00:08
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.