Since we have reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs in fact petitioned for reliance compensation (the sums they paid for the real estate) alongside subsistence compensation relying on the profit they would have derived from that transaction if clause 15 had not been included in the contracts, it is clear that subsistence compensation and reliance compensation cannot coexist as aggregate remedies. In this context, the case law states, "An ox and a donkey shall not plough together, and reliance compensation and subsistence compensation shall not be awarded by a protester (Civil Appeal 8966/08 Lee Netanel Properties in Tax Appeal v. Home Center (Do-It-Yourself) Ltd., [published in Nevo] at paragraph 18 and the references there (March 2, 2011)). This, except in exceptional cases where the conflict between the interest of reliance and existence is purely theoretical and there is no double compensation (Civil Appeal 8850/10 Shir Mishkenot Vetikim in Tax Appeal v. League for the Prevention of Lung Diseases, Tel Aviv [published in Nevo] (August 20, 2013))..." (Civil Appeal 3805/17 Kibbutz Kramim Agricultural Cooperative Society in Tax Appeal v. Antipod Investments in Tax Appeal (June 25, 2019); Section 4 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Amit).
In accordance with the second alternative, the plaintiffs petitioned to compensate them for the value of the difference between the value of other real estate "in the same area, privately owned... at the time of purchase" and the value of those real estate "today after the change of designation" (section 82 of the amended statement of claim). However, it has not been proven that there is a basis for comparison between land leased from the Civil Administration and private land. The expert on behalf of the plaintiffs himself confirmed that "private ownership is not similar to leased land" (p. 524, paras. 8-10). It is not clear whether the plaintiffs would have purchased private land when the values of the land were significantly higher than the land that was the subject of the claim (see p. 13 of the expert opinion on behalf of the plaintiffs, which was attached as Appendix 10 to the amended statement of claim).