Court: State can't take East J'lem lands abandoned in 1967 war By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/674191.html
The Tel Aviv District Court issued on Monday a groundbreaking ruling stating that the Absentee Property Law could not be applied to West Bank lands abandoned by Palestinians during the 1967 Six Day War.
The ruling joins General Attorney Menachem Mazuz's February 2005 ruling which rescinded a government decision to apply the law to property in East Jerusalem which is owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere in the West Bank.
Monday's ruling, handed by judge Boaz Okun, holds that the state could not declare Palestinian land which was abandoned following the 1967 war as "land under Israel's effective sovereignty."
The ruling states that declaring lands owned by West Bank Palestinians as "absentee property" was illegal and no longer in effect.
The 1950 Absentee Property Law was passed in the Knesset following the 1948 War of Independence, and allowed Israel to appropriate lands which were abandoned by Arabs following the war.
Monday's ruling concerned three Palestinians, Noha Dekak and Moussa and Hala Djani, who purchased property in the Beit Hanina neighborhood in East Jerusalem from a Palestinian whose status as 1967 absentees was unclear.
According to the Jerusalem municipality and the absentee property custodian, the property had been declared "absentee property" and transferred to the state's ownership, and therefore could not be registered under the Palestinians' name.
Okun states that the land could not be declared "absentee property," but he also put forth an in-principle ruling on the Absentee Property Law.
"This law was passed in a certain reality," Okun wrote in his ruling, "but following the Six day War the entire West Bank population passed under effective Israeli control. Applying this law under these conditions could create a limbo, in which land outside the rule of Israeli law can be annexed by Israel, while its owners are not defined as residents of an enemy state."
"This is a type of judicial stunt which does not reflect any reality," Okun said.
Monday's ruling constitutes a directive ruling for other district courts, but is not binding as a High Court of Justice ruling.