Eminent domain

Last updated

Eminent domain (United States, Philippines), land acquisition (India, Malaysia, [1] [2] Singapore), compulsory purchase/acquisition (Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, United Kingdom), resumption (Hong Kong, Uganda), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia, Barbados, New Zealand, Ireland, United Kingdom), or expropriation (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Serbia) is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another private property owner without a valid public purpose. [3] 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. [4]


The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads, government buildings and public utilities. Many railroads were given the right of eminent domain to obtain land or easements in order to build and connect rail networks. 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 for redevelopment. This was initially done only to a property that has been deemed "blighted" or a "development impediment", 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 third-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).


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, [5] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for "supreme ownership") 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, [6] [ where? ] even intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. [7] 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. [8]

A taking of property must be accompanied by payment of "just compensation" to the [former] owner.[ citation needed ] 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[ where? ] have limited compensation to the property's fair market value, considering its highest and best use.[ citation needed ] 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[ citation needed ] 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[ where? ] to be noncompensable in eminent domain.[ citation needed ] The same is true of attorneys' and appraisers fees.[ citation needed ] 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,[ citation needed ] and in the U.S. may be partially covered by provisions of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act.[ citation needed ]



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. [9]


East Asia


In China, "requisitions", the Chinese form of eminent domain, are constitutionally permitted as necessary for the public interest, and if compensation is provided. The 2019 Amendment of the Land Administration Law of China spells out rather detailed guidelines, guaranteeing farmers and those displaced greater financial security. [10]


Japan 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.

South Asia


The Constitution of India originally provided for the Fundamental 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. [11]

The provisions relating to the right to property were changed a number of times. The 44th amendment of 1978 deleted the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights. [12] 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. [13]

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 on 1 January 2014. [14] Until 2013, land acquisition in India was governed by Land Acquisition Act of 1894. [15] However the new LARR (amendment) ordinance 31 December 2014 diluted many clauses of the original act. [16] 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. [17]


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.

Southeast Asia


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 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. [18]


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 [19] accusations of collaboration with the Nazi occupier, the Renault company was expropriated from Louis Renault posthumously and nationalised as Régie Nationale des Usines Renault [19] —without compensation. [20]


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" [21] and just compensation must be made. It also provides for the right to have the amount of the compensation checked by a court.


, "expropriate", protest graffiti in Turin Espropria graffiti in Turin October 2016.jpg
Espropria, "expropriate", protest graffiti in Turin

Esproprio – or more formally espropriazione per pubblica utilità ("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, [22] amended by D.Lgs. n.302 of 2002; [23] 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. [24] 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 any private goods can be expropriated for public utility. Furthermore, the article 2 of the Constitution binds Italian citizens to respect their "mandatory duties of political, economic and social solidarity".

The implementation of the eminent domain follows two principles: [25]

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. [26]


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). [27] 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.

United Kingdom

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 by 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.


In Scotland, eminent domain is known as compulsory purchase. The development of powers of compulsory purchase originated in the railway mania of the Victorian period. [28] Compensation is available to the landowner, with the Lands Tribunal for Scotland dealing with any disputes arising from the value of compensation. [29] Like, England & Wales, the law of compulsory purchase in Scotland is complex. The current statutes regulating compulsory purchase include: the Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845; the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947; the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963. The Scottish Law Commission considered the current state of the law of compulsory purchase and advocated reforms in its Discussion Paper on Compulsory Purchase. Such reforms have yet to be made by the Scottish Parliament. [30]



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." [31] 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. [32]

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 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". [33] 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'. [34] The High Court of Australia interpreted this provision literally, relieving the Territory government of any public purpose limitation on the power. [35] 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. [36]

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 [37] and that, through the act of compulsory acquisition, the Crown is "resuming" possession.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Public Works Act 1981 outlines the powers of the state in relation to land used for public purposes. Under Section 16 of the Public Works Act 1981 the Minister is "empowered to acquire under this Act any land required for a Government work". Local government authorities (such as City or District councils) are also empowered under the same section to acquire land for "local work for which it has financial responsibility." [38]

North America

The Bahamas

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.


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

United States

Most states use the term eminent domain, but some U.S. states use the term appropriation or expropriation (Louisiana) as synonyms for the exercise of eminent domain powers. [39] [40] The term condemnation is used to describe the formal act of exercising the 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. [41] Some elements of value, such as a business's connection to the location and the goodwill of the public, are only compensable in a few jurisdictions; where they are not, fair market value may be less than the value of the location to the current user. [41]

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. [42]

In federal law, Congress can 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. [43] The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of "public use". [44]

South America


In Argentina expropriations are governed by federal law 21.499 of January 17, 1977. [45] It has been used in many ocations throughout the country's history most recently during the renationalization of YPF. which resulted in the expropriation of 51% of the energy company's shares.


Brazil's expropriation laws are governed by the Presidential Decree No. 3365 of June 21, 1941. [46]


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." [47]



Since 1967, the encyclical Populorum progressio the Catholic social teaching allows the expropriation of land estates for common good needs. [48]

See also

Related Research Articles

Nationalization or collectivization is the process of transforming privately-owned assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state. Nationalization usually refers to private assets or to assets owned by lower levels of government being transferred to the state. Nationalization contrasts with privatization and with demutualization. When previously nationalized assets are privatized and subsequently returned to public ownership at a later stage, they are said to have undergone renationalization. Industries often subject to nationalization include the commanding heights of the economy – telecommunications, electric power, fossil fuels, railways, airlines, iron ore, media, postal services, banks, and water – though, in many jurisdictions, many such entities have no history of private ownership.

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court voted 8–0 to hold that private property could be taken for a public purpose with just compensation. The case laid the foundation for the Court's later important public use cases, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".

Just compensation is a right enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is invoked whenever private property is taken by the government. Usually, the government (condemnor) files an eminent domain action to take private property for "public use.", but when it fails to do so and pay for the taking, the owner may seek compensation in an action called "inverse condemnation." For reasons of expedience, courts have been generally using fair market value as the measure of just compensation, reasoning that this is the amount that a willing seller would accept in a voluntary sales transaction, and therefore it should also be payable in an involuntary one. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that "fair market value" as defined by it falls short of what sellers would demand and receive in voluntary transactions.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could use eminent domain to take land that was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 51(xxxi)</span>

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia.

Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), was a court case that took place in the Supreme Court of the United States. It invoked the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is related to the issue of eminent domain.

Oregon Ballot Measure 37 is a controversial land-use ballot initiative that passed in the U.S. state of Oregon in 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of property owners versus the public's right to enforce environmental and other land use regulations. Voters passed Measure 49 in 2007, substantially reducing the impact of Measure 37.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Arizona Proposition 207</span> Ballot measure to regarding eminent domain

Arizona Proposition 207, a 2006 ballot initiative officially titled the Private Property Rights Protection Act, requires the government to reimburse land owners when regulations result in a decrease in the property's value, and also prevents government from exercising eminent domain on behalf of a private party. It was approved by a 64.8% margin. The land use portion of this proposition is similar to Oregon's 2004 Ballot Measure 37, and the eminent domain portion is similar to initiatives advanced in numerous states following the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

Land and property laws in Israel are the property law component of Israeli law, providing the legal framework for the ownership and other in rem rights towards all forms of property in Israel, including real estate (land) and movable property. Besides tangible property, economic rights are also usually treated as property, in addition to being covered by the law of obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Permits eminent domain

The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1971, curtailed the fundamental right to property, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts. The amendment also exempted any law giving effect to the article 39(b) and (c) of Directive Principles of State Policy from judicial review, even if it violated the Fundamental Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013</span> Act of Indian Parliament

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is an Act of Indian Parliament that regulates land acquisition and lays down the procedure and rules for granting compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons in India. The Act has provisions to provide fair compensation to those whose land is taken away, brings transparency to the process of acquisition of land to set up factories or buildings, infrastructural projects and assures rehabilitation of those affected. The Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enacted during British rule.

Land acquisition is the power of the union or a state government in India to take private land for public, and to compensate the original owners and other persons affected due to such acquisition.

Compulsory purchase is the power to acquire rights over an estate in English land law, or to buy that estate outright, without the current owner's consent in return for compensation. In England and Wales, Parliament has granted several different kinds of compulsory purchase power, which are exercisable by various bodies in various situations. Such powers are "for the public benefit", but this expression is interpreted very broadly.

Land bonds are financial bonds used in many countries to satisfy, in whole or in part, the compensation payable by the government for compulsory acquisition of any land from private landowners.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Land Compensation Act 1961</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Land Compensation Act 1961 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, which concerns English land law and compulsory purchase. The majority of this Act was brought into force on 1 August 1961, with Part V s.42 coming into force on 22 July 1961.

Eminent domain in the United States refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring just compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.

United States v. Jones, 109 U.S. 513 (1883), is an important decision by the United States Supreme Court which provides the power to take private property for public uses, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, to the government of the United States. However, once the government exercises of the right of eminent domain and after a fair determination of the amount of compensation, any unforeseen damage to the property as a result of activities prior to the purchase but realized only afterwards is to be compensated by the government per any legislative decree.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Declaration of Taking Act of 1931</span> 1931 US Federal statute allowing the federal government to seize private land for public use

Federal Declaration of Taking Act of 1931 is a federal statute granting the American federal government power to acquire private land for public use purposes in the United States. The Takings Clause defines private land as eminent domain meaning United States government entity is obligated the award of just compensation to a property owner relinquishing private property for public use purposes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquisition of Land Act 1967</span> Legislation

The Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (ALA) is an Act of the Parliament of Queensland. The ALA establishes authority for the Queensland Government to acquire land for specific purposes including the creation of roads, railways, and other essential infrastructure. The acquisition of land in this way is referred to in Australian legal jurisdictions as ‘compulsory acquisition’, known internationally as eminent domain. The ALA does not allow such acquisition for a private purpose, only by the State for one of the purposes specified.


  1. "Land Acquisition" (PDF). Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  2. "Land acquisition's chequered history". The Star. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  3. Caves, R. W. (2004). Encyclopedia of the City. Routledge. p. 216.
  4. Saxer, Shelley Ross (2005). "Government Power Unleashed: Using Eminent Domain to Acquire a Public Utility or Other Ongoing Enterprise". Indiana Law Review. 38 (55): 55.
  5. Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2004). Constitutional Law (Seventh ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson West. p. 263. ISBN   0-314-14452-8.
  6. Schultz, David (2009-12-22). Evicted! Property Rights and Eminent Domain in America: Property Rights and Eminent Domain in America. ABC-CLIO. ISBN   9780313353451.
  7. Diles, Mitchell. "Condemning Clothes: The Constitutionality of Taking Trademarks in the Professional Sports Franchise Context". Washington and Lee University School of Law.
  8. "City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1982) 32 C3d 60". Online.ceb.com. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  9. Dancaescu, Nick. Note. Land reform in Zimbabwe. 15 Fla. J. Int'l L. 615 (2003).
  10. Arya J., Taghdiri (December 20, 2019). "A Comparative Perspective of Eminent Domain Laws in the United States & China" (PDF). Tsinghua China Law Review. 12:115 (12): 115–141.
  11. "THE STATE OF BIHAR v. MAHARAJADHIRAJA SIR KAMESHWAR SINGHOF DARBHANGA AND OTHERS(C". Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2008-10-15.
  12. "The Constitution (Amendment)". Indiacode.nic.in. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  13. Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics, p. A-33
  14. "The Land Acquisition, Rehabilation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 – Full Text of Bill". Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2014-01-07.
  15. 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).
  16. "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance" (PDF). Prsindia.irg. 2014. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  17. Mahapatra, Dhananjay (28 February 2009). "Should right to property return?". The Times of India .
  18. See James v United Kingdom , decision of ECHR dated by 21 February 1986, para 54.
  19. 1 2 "Louis Renault and the shame of a nation". London: The Daily Telegraph, Ian Morton. 14 May 2005.
  20. "Foreign News: Was He Murdered?". Time . February 6, 1956. Archived from the original on December 14, 2008.
  21. "Art. 14 GG". Dejure.org. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  22. "D.P.R. 327/2001". Camera.it. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  23. "Dlgs 302/2002". Parlamento.it. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  24. 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. Archived from the original on 2016-03-24. Retrieved 2016-03-28.
  25. Assini, N.-Tescaroli, N. (2003). Manuale pratico dell'espropriazione. Padua.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. congreso.es Constitución Española de 1978 Art 33 part 3.
  27. "Expropriationslag (1972:719) (ExprL)". Lagen.nu. Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  28. Scottish Law Commission, Discussion Paper on Compulsory Purchase (2014, SLC DP No: 159).
  29. Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 s.8.
  30. Scottish Law Commission, Discussion Paper on Compulsory Purchase (2014, SLC DP No: 159). Available under the OGL via: https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/publications/discussion-papers-and-consultative-memoranda/2010-present/
  31. "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]". Archived from the original on 2009-04-11. Retrieved 2009-09-24.
  32. "Andrews v Howell (1941) 65 CLR 255". Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  33. Australian Constitutional Commission, Final Report of the Constitutionali Commission vol 1 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1988): 600. ISBN   0-644-06897-3.
  34. "LANDS ACQUISITION ACT - SECT 43 Acquisition generally". Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2011-01-14.
  35. "Griffiths v Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment [2008] HCA 20 (15 May 2008)". Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  36. 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. doi:10.1177/1037969X0903400301. S2CID   152726985.
  37. Samantha J. Hepburn, Principles of Property Law, 2nd ed. (Newport, NSW: Cavendish, 2001):45-46. ISBN   1-876905-08-5.
  38. "Public Works Act 1981 (NZ Legislation Website)".
  39. "New York Code, Public Lands, Art. 2, Sec. 27, Appropriations". NYSenate.gov. The New York Senate. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  40. "Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 19, Expropriation". Louisiana State Legislature. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  41. 1 2 Larson, Aaron. "Eminent Domain". ExpertLaw.com. ExpertLaw. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  42. "The Evolution of Eminent Domain: A Remedy for Market Failure or an Effort to Limit Government Power and Government Failure?" (PDF). Independent.org. Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  43. See, e.g., "Linggi v. Garovotti, 45 Cal.2d 20, 286 P.2d 15 (1955)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 13 May 2018.
  44. Portner, Jonathan (Spring 1988). "The Continued Expansion of thePublic Use Requirement in Eminent Domain". The University of Baltimore Law Review. 17 (6): 543.
  45. "Ley 21". servicios.infoleg.gob.ar. Retrieved 2022-06-14.
  46. "DECRETO-LEI Nº 3.365, DE 21 DE JUNHO DE 1941". Presidência da República. Retrieved 24 October 2017.
  47. "Chile" (PDF). Confinder.richmond.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-05-14. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  48. "Encyclical "Populorum progressio"". (at n. 24).