Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 31735-01-22 Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality v. Miriam Danoch

Introduction

1. I have before me a claim concerning a demand for the eviction and removal of hands from a real estate complex located near Metzitzim Beach, on Tel Aviv Port Street and known as Block 6962, part of Plot 150 in the city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (hereinafter: the "Real Estate", "the Complex" or the "Property").
2. The property that is the subject of this lawsuit is owned by the State of Israel.
3. Plaintiff 1 is the Tel Aviv Municipality (hereinafter: "Plaintiff 1" or "the Municipality"), and it has the rights to hold the land, after it has announced its expropriation for public purposes. In accordance with the approved plan and the published expropriation order, the eastern part of the land is designated for public parking and the western part is designated for a beach.
4. Plaintiff 2 is the Israel Land Authority, the legal representative of the State of Israel and the person who manages the land it owns (hereinafter: "Plaintiff 2" or "ILA").
5. The defendant in the proceeding number 31735-01-22 is Mrs. Miriam Danoch (hereinafter "the defendant" or "  Danoch").
6. The defendants in the proceeding number 61057-12-21 are members of the Or family - Nurit, Zohar and Sawal (hereinafter: the "Defendants" or "the Or Family").
7. The proceeding was initially opened against 8 defendants, in the framework of 4 different claims in the complex. During the course of the proceeding, some of the parties were able to reach understandings regarding eviction from the land by means of compromise.  Therefore, some of the claims were terminated even before this judgment.  As for the remaining two assets, which are the assets that are the subject of this proceeding, the parties have not reached understandings and a decision is required.
8. The entire lawsuit revolves around the plaintiffs' claim regarding their right to evict the land from someone who holds it illegally. The defendants, for their part, disagree with these arguments and raise various arguments that attest to their rights in the land and justify, in their view, the dismissal of the claim, including claims of obtaining irrevocable permission.  When the defendants did not respond to the plaintiffs' demand regarding the evacuation of the land and the transfer of possession of it, the plaintiffs filed the claims in question.  As a result, the parties also disagree on the terms of the evacuation of the land, i.e., whether the defendants are entitled to compensation for the eviction, and what will be worth if they are granted.
9. These disputes will be discussed and decided in the framework of this judgment.

Summary of the parties' arguments