Jerusalem Court Orders Correction of Condominium Registration

The Jerusalem District Court ordered the correction of a condominium registration that did not reflect the actual buildings on the property or the valid lease agreements with the Israel Land Authority. The case involved two buildings constructed decades apart on the same parcel—one registered properly, the other not. After reviewing building permits, zoning plans, and lease documents, the court ruled that the registry must be amended to reflect lawful construction and existing lease rights, confirming the plaintiffs’ rightful property ownership.

Edited by Adv. Rotem Ish-Tov with the assistance of intern Gali Raz

Under the Real Property Law, land registry records are considered final proof of ownership, but the court still has the power to correct them under Sections 93–97 of the Land Settlement Ordinance.

In this brief, we review the judgment of the Jerusalem District Court. The ruling addresses a condominium registration order that does not reflect the plaintiffs’ building, even though it has stood for over 40 years, and in practice does not reflect reality. The court was therefore required to decide a proprietary question—whether the plaintiffs are holders of rights in the property.

Case Circumstances

This case involved a parcel of land in Jerusalem owned by the Israel Land Authority. Two buildings were built there at different times. The first building, owned by the defendants, was built in the 1960s and properly registered as a condominium. About ten years later, the plaintiffs built another building on the same parcel, but their property was never registered in the Land Registry (Tabu). As a result, the registry didn’t show the real situation, and the plaintiffs’ ownership was missing from the records.

The plaintiffs submitted documents proving their rights — including a valid building permit, an approved zoning plan, and a lease agreement with the Israel Land Authority. They also had written consent from the owners of the first building. The Israel Land Authority supported their claim, stating that the second building was legally built and that updating the registration was necessary to show the true ownership.

The defendants argued that the land registry is final and cannot be changed unless very specific legal conditions are met. They also claimed the lease agreements were invalid and that the Israel Land Authority acted beyond its authority. They filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs’ leases are illegal.

Decision

The court accepted most of the plaintiffs’ claims and rejected the counterclaim.

It found that the building permit, zoning plan, and lease agreements were all properly issued and valid. There was no sign of wrongdoing by the authorities. The Israel Land Authority had the right to lease the land for the second building.

The court concluded that the registry does not reflect the true ownership of the land and must be corrected. Based on its legal authority under the Land Settlement Ordinance, the court ordered the registry to be updated to reflect the plaintiffs as the rightful owners of their apartments. It also appointed a receiver to manage the correction process.

Case Reference:
CC (Jer) 48585-12-21 Asher Vaknin v. Tzachi Zizi