An Australian citizen last week petitioned the High Court of Justice against the Tel Aviv municipality to cancel the expropriation of part of the lot for the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Ichilov Hospital) that is occupied by the Weizmann Center. The petitioner is demanding a share of the proceeds from the municipality's share of the lot, which is now worth over NIS 100 million. Ocif Investments and Development (TASE: OCIF) owns the Weizmann Center.
The Australian's attorney said that his client's grandfather died in Israel, then a British Mandate, in 1934. The client's late grandfather owned large lots of land. The 1944 Sharona Urban Building Plan (UBP), designated the lots for a hospital, later known as Ichilov Hospital. The petition claims that part of the land owned by the client's grandfather was slated for expropriation for the hospital.
The petition claims that the UBP that became valid in November 1996 for the first time rezoned the lot, including two portions owned by the petitioner, for a geriatric center, assisted living facilities, clinics, doctors' offices, other offices, a hotel, and commercial space.
In 1998, the Tel Aviv municipality published a tender to lease the lot for 99 years, and in May 1999, the municipal council approved the sale of the leasing rights to Ocif for NIS 100 million plus VAT.
The Australian's attorney claims that the municipality's building plans indicate that the Weizmann Center was built on land expropriated from his client's late grandfather. The Weizmann Center is a commercial complex for all intents and purposes, is not needed for hospital, but the for the use of the general public.
The municipality building plans also indicate that all the hospital's needs have been met within the space of the hospital's lot, unrelated to the Weizmann Center.
The attorney claims that the lease of lots expropriated from his client's late grandfather by the municipality to a third party was illegal, for two reasons. First, the municipality was authorized to expropriate the land for a specific public purpose (a hospital), and when this public need ended, the municipality should have returned the land to its owners. Secondly, before leasing the expropriated lots to a third party, the municipality should have offered them to their owners.
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on April 3, 2005