Settlers say they can prove possession of disputed building

According to law, as long as ownership is in doubt, trespasser may be evicted during the first 30 days of his physical possession of the property.

By DAN IZENBERG
hebron house 224.88 (photo credit: Tovah Lazaroff)
hebron house 224.88
(photo credit: Tovah Lazaroff)
The attorney representing the alleged Jewish purchasers of a four-story building in Hebron declined on Thursday to respond to a question posed by the court the previous day. Instead, he submitted new evidence which he claimed proved not only that the Jewish company bought the building, but was also in possession of it when dozens of settlers occupied it in March 2007. According to the law, if they were in possession of the building for at least 30 days before they moved into, even if they did not own it, the police could not evict them according to the relatively simple procedure known as "fresh occupation." "This is the true version of the events," wrote Attorney Nadav Ha'etzni in a brief submitted to the court. "According to this version, [Faez] Rajabi [the man who allegedly sold the building to the settlers through Ayub, a Palestinian front man, and who claims the building still belongs to him] carried out the repairs in the building on behalf of Ayub, as Ayub's intermediary and in return for payment which Rajabi received from Ayub." On Wednesday, a panel of three justices headed by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch urged Ha'etzni to advise his clients to withdraw the petition and leave the disputed building voluntarily and demanded a reply within 24 hours. However, instead of giving the petitioners' answer, Ha'etzni submitted the brief which included a recording of a conversation between an unnamed Palestinian and Rajabi which, he said, proved not only that the settlers had purchased the building, but that Rajabi was hired to make repairs in the building by the purchasers and was no longer in possession of it himself. "It is clear that this admission [by Rajabi] upends everything and obliges you to reconsider your position regarding the issuing of the eviction order," Ha'etzni wrote the justices. "In light of the above, you are requested to consent to postpone the petition until the end of the reexamination [of the taped conversation] and the formulation of your position regarding the eviction order given the new admission by Rajabi." The police, who agreed with Rajabi that he was in possession of the buildings when the settlers broke into it, issued eviction orders against the 20 Jewish families living there. According to the tape, and the sworn affidavit signed by the Palestinian who allegedly taped the conversation, Rajabi told him that Ayub had paid him the money for the purchase of the building and had also given him money to make the repairs. Rajabi also told the Palestinian who made the tape that he had been investigated and humiliated, presumably, though he did not say so explicitly, by the Palestinian Authority, apparently because they suspected that he knew he was selling the building to Jews. The High Court of Justice has refused to deal with the question of who owns the building. Rajabi claims he did not sell it and complained to the police the day after the settlers took over the building. The settlers claim they bought the building from Rajabi and have paid him 80 percent of the price. The court has made it clear that the dispute over ownership must be resolved in district court. Now, Ha'etzni is trying to prove that the settlers not only owned the building, but were in possession of it when they moved in, even though neither they, nor Rajabi, were living in it before they occupied it. According to the law, if someone occupies a property that does not belong to him, the police may evict him within 30 days by doing nothing more than serving an eviction notice. This is the procedure for dealing with a "fresh occupation." The only recourse the trespasser has is to petition the High Court against the order. However, once the trespasser has occupied the property for more than 30 days, the procedure for evicting him is more complicated and takes a long time. The trespasser may claim that he was the owner of the property he occupied. However, unless there is clear proof that he is the owner, the police may evict him. If the ownership of the property is in dispute between the trespasser and another party, the dispute must be settled in court (but not the Supreme Court.) As long as the ownership is in doubt, the trespasser may be evicted during the first 30 days of his physical possession of the property.