Israel to Pay for Demolishing Beyond Court Order

A Jerusalem court has ruled that state authorities must compensate a Jerusalem resident for demolishing more of his property than a demolition order permitted. The ruling came after the Israel Land Authority (ILA) exceeded the scope of an administrative demolition order when it destroyed a commercial structure in the Ras Khamis neighborhood.

The property, owned by Iyad Radwan, was initially built without a permit over a decade ago. However, the ILA's focus was on a second story, also built without a permit, which was the subject of an administrative demolition order issued in November 2020. The initial demolition of the second story occurred in March 2021. A subsequent inspection in March 2022 revealed further construction, leading to a second demolition operation.

During the second operation, ILA forces not only demolished the second story but also significantly damaged the ceiling of the ground floor, which was not included in the demolition order. Radwan sued the state for approximately NIS 1.07 million, citing damages to the structure, equipment, and goods on the ground floor. The state countersued for about NIS 144,000 to cover demolition and police escort costs.

Senior Judge Miriam Kelsi ruled that administrative demolition orders are an exceptional enforcement tool and must be strictly adhered to. She found that the demolition of the ground floor ceiling was unauthorized, constituting both a breach of statutory duty and negligence. The judge rejected the state's argument that the property owner should not be compensated because the building itself was illegal, stating that a specific law providing compensation for damage caused by unlawful authority action overrides general legal principles.

The court awarded Radwan NIS 198,279 in damages, plus interest. However, the judge did not award additional court costs to Radwan due to deficiencies in his lawsuit, including false claims about when he acquired the property and his rebuilding the second story after the initial demolition. The state's counterclaim was entirely dismissed due to abandonment and lack of evidence.