The Israel Land Authority sued to evict a group of residents who have held state land in Bik'at HaKana'im, near Arad, for many years, and both the Magistrates' Court and the District Court granted the suit. The Supreme Court denied the applications for leave to appeal, relying on the recent Alhuashla ruling.
What happened
The Israel Land Authority (ILA) filed a suit in the Be'er Sheva Magistrates' Court to evict residents from state-owned land in Bik'at HaKana'im, near Arad. In June 2024 the suit was granted: the residents were to be evicted, demolition orders were issued for the structures built there along with an order barring entry to the land, and the residents were ordered to bear the eviction costs if the ILA carried it out. Enforcement of the orders was deferred for two years, until 30.6.2026.
The Magistrates' Court recognised that the residents were not trespassers but licensees who had held the land for many years. Even so, this was a revocable license on public land, meaning one the state may cancel. A public authority that cancels such a license is bound by public-law rules and must consider, among other things, alternative housing and compensation for investments in the land. The court found that the residents had not proved that the ILA acted in bad faith or arbitrarily, and held that they had been offered suitable alternative housing in a recognised locality, which they rejected, insisting that their residence be regularised on the present site. The argument that a recognised locality could be established on the land was rejected, because it was a planning argument that had not been raised before the competent planning bodies. By agreement of the parties, 16 similar suits against other residents of the area were stayed, and the outcome of this case will apply to them as well.
The appeal and the Alhuashla ruling
The District Court put the appeal on hold until the Supreme Court decided a similar case in November 2025 (Leave for Civil Appeal 51561-09-24, the Alhuashla case). There it held that a license to use public land is, as a rule, revocable; that the state need not show a concrete need for the land in order to revoke it; that the ILA must weigh the harm to the licensees against the need to clear the land, and that this balancing can affect how and when the eviction takes place but does not create a right to stay; and that challenges to planning policy are not examined in a civil eviction suit.
The residents then narrowed their appeal to three arguments: there is no current planning need for the land, they have no alternative housing, and they had already been evicted twice in the past. The District Court dismissed the appeal in June 2026, also finding that the ILA had shown a legitimate planning need consistent with government decisions. A request to stay enforcement was denied, but the court ordered that the eviction not be carried out before 15.10.2026.
The Supreme Court's decision
The Supreme Court noted that leave for a "third round" of appeal is granted only in exceptional cases, under Regulation 148A of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018 (5779). The questions of principle about the ILA's duties when ending a license on public land have already been settled in the case law, most recently in Alhuashla. The residents had given up the general arguments on appeal, and the three remaining arguments concern only how the law applies to their own situation.
The court added that the arguments also failed on the merits:
- Planning need: the state, as owner of the land, does not have to prove that its plans are necessary, and in any case a public need for the eviction was found to have been shown.
- Alternative housing: the ILA worked, in coordination with the authority for regulating Bedouin settlement in the Negev, to find immediately available alternatives, which the residents consistently refused. Refusing the alternatives offered does not justify continued holding of public land.
- Past evictions: the Magistrates' Court found no proof linking the residents to the site in the 1950s, and aerial photographs showed that their settlement there began in the 1980s. Nor was the legal significance of this argument explained.
- Negotiations: the residents had more than two years to make arrangements. The authority's duty to limit the harm is not a duty to reach the arrangement the occupants prefer.
The court acknowledged that the eviction has serious consequences for people who have lived on the site for many years, and expressed the hope that an agreed solution will be found.
The outcome
The application for leave to appeal was denied without a response being requested, and the application concerning the stay of enforcement became moot. No costs were awarded.
Key takeaways
- Holding state land for many years with permission, rather than as a trespasser, is still usually a revocable license; length of time alone does not create a right to stay.
- A public authority evicting licensees must weigh the harm to them, including alternative housing and compensation; keep a written record of every offer received and your response.
- Consistently refusing the alternative housing offered can count against the occupant and does not prevent the eviction.
- Planning arguments, such as establishing a locality on the site, belong before the competent planning bodies, not in a civil eviction suit.
- Giving up arguments at the appeal stage makes it very hard to bring them back before the Supreme Court.
This article summarizes a published Israeli court decision in plain language and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its facts. The parties' names have been omitted. This is a first-instance decision and may be appealed.
