Forced expropriation

The Supreme Court (TS) has ruled on an interesting case about the forced expropriation of land intended for public services , when finally the Administration does not carry out the works or implement the services for which the expropriation took place.

It all started when a person whose land had been expropriated, intended for public use according to the urban plan, requested that the land be returned to him , that is, that his right to reversion be recognized. At first, he tried based on urban planning legislation, but his request was rejected because, although the land use had been modified, it still remained a public endowment use (for example, a green area or school), so it was not appropriate to return the land to him.

In this second attempt, the person changed his argument and raised the reversion claiming that the Administration had not carried out the work or the public service for which the land was expropriated, relying on the Forced Expropriation Law.

Both the court and the higher court said no, but the TS has ruled in their favor . It explains that, generally, urban planning law is the one that should be applied first , but if there are legal gaps, the Forced Expropriation Law can be used as a supplementary measure. Thus, when the Administration carries out more than 5 years without doing anything with the land expropriated for public use, the right of reversion must be recognized and the land must be returned to its former owner. This prevents the Administration from keeping expropriated lands without fulfilling the public purpose that justified taking them from their owners.