Three-Dimensional Partition and Registration of Subsurface Land Space

Israel Law Review

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 119-167

  Sandberg, Haim ^a  

^a School of Law ^*  (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84977524137     PISSN: 00212237     EISSN: 20479336     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0021223700012425     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Elisha Efrat, “Israel is Marching Towards Becoming a City-State” (1999) 47 Karka 34 [in Hebrew].
2. Tourisme Montreal “City under the City,” http://www.tourisme-montreal.org/abouttm_target/news/en/html/566_en.asp (Last visited 17/11/2003).
3. Michael Birat, “Implications of Technological Construction Innovations on National Planning in the Coming Decades,” in Israel 2000, Israel Master Plan for the 21” Century, Phase I Report (Jerusalem, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Construction and Housing, the Israel Land Administration and the Jewish Agency, 1993) 243, at 256 [in Hebrew].
4. See, e.g. Michelle Andrea Wenzel, “Comment: The Model Surface Use and Mineral Development Accommodation Act: Easy Easements for Mining Interests” (1993) 42 Am. U. L. Rev. 607, at 608.
5. Robert R. Wright, The Law of Airspace (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1968) 224–229;
6. Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender, Vol. 2, Release 82, 1998) 18A-5.
7. Patrick J. Rohan and Melvin A. Reskin, Condominium Law and Practice (San Francisco, Mathew Bender, Vol. 1, Part 1, release 69, 1999) Ch. 5, at 8.
8. See, e.g. the Shalom Bloc, “Peace Agreement (Draft)” Haaretz, 10 August 2001, at 7A [in Hebrew].
9. The population of Israel is expected to increase to nine million in 2020 and more than thirteen million in 2050. Jossef Forrai and Gili Kirschner, “Transition from Two-Dimensional Legal and Cadastral Reality to a Three-Dimensional One”, Registration of Properties in Strata - International Workshop on 3D Cadastre Proceedings (P. J.M. Van Oosterom, J.E. Stoter, E.M. Fendel, 2001), [Hereinafter: International Workshop] 9, at 10.
10. Akunas v. State of Israel, 57(1) P.D. 817.
11. Francesco Parisi, “Entropy in Property” (2000) 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 595, at 606.
12. Merrill and Smith suggest that the “formalistic or bright-line” nature of the doctrine is a result of the tendency of rules that protect in rem rights to communicate information about the scope of protected rights at acceptable costs. Thomas W. Merrill, Henry E. Smith, “The Property/Contract Interface” (2001) 101 Colum. L. Rev. 773, at 803.
13. Stuart S. Ball, “The Vertical Extent of Ownership in Land” (1928) 76 U. Penn. L. Rev. 631, at 639.
14. For a historical review of the development of the institution see C.G. Van Der Merwe, “Apartment Ownership,” in Athanassios N. Yiannopoulos Ch. ed. International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Tubingen, Mohr, 1973) Vol. VI, Ch.5, at 6.
15. see Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender, Vol. 9, Release 93, 12/2000) 64A-12 ff;
16. Fowler V. Harper, Fleming James, and Jr. Oscar S. Gray, The Law of Torts (Boston, Little Brown, 3rd ed. 1996) Vol. 1, at § 1.5.
17. Haim Sandberg, “Three-Dimensional Division and Registration of the Subsurface Land Space,” in Shalom Lerner and Daphna Lewinson-Zamir, eds. Essays in Honour of Joshua Weisman (Jerusalem, The Harry and Michael Sacher Institute, 2002) 281, at 285–286 [in Hebrew].
18. On the relationship between the recognition of private property and the recognition of the principle of freedom of contract, see Patrick Selim Atiya, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1979), at 330;
19. see also Morton J. Horowitz, “The Historical Foundations of Modern Contract Law” (1974) 87 Harv. L. Rev. 917.
20. See Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed, “Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral” (1972) 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1089.
21. Robert C. Ellickson, “Property in Land” (1993) 102 Yale L. Rev. 1315, at 1327–1328;
22. Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender Vol. 9, Release 83, 6/1998) 68–7.
23. Among the more prominent supporters are Demsetz and Ellickson For a description of the approach and its supporters, see Hanoch Dagan and Michael A. Heller, “The Liberal Commons” (2001) 110 Yale L. J. 549, at 559–563.
24. Harold Demsetz, “Toward a Theory of Property Rights” (1967) 57 Am. Econ. Rev. 347, at 354–356;
25. Michael A. Heller, “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets” (1998) 111 Harv. L. Rev. 621, at 622.
26. CA 7112/93, Tzudle. v. Yosef, 45(5) P.D. 550;
27. For an economic analysis of the case see Hanoch Dagan, “Interpretation of the Laws Concerning Property, Condominiums and the Problem of Common Action” (1996) 45 Tel-Aviv University Law Review 79–91 [in Hebrew].
28. Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender Vol. 9, Release 86, 3/1999) 64–66.
29. See Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender, Vol. 9, Release 95, 06/2001) Ch. 63.
30. See Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender, Vol. 9, Release 93, 12/2000) Ch. 64A.
31. See Jonathan Gaunt and Paul Morgan, Gale on Easements (London, Sweet and Maxwell, 17 ed. 2002) at 149ff.
32. See, e.g. Julius L. Sackman and Russell, D. Van Brunt, eds. Nichols on Eminent Domain (New York, Mathew Bender, 3rd ed. Vol. 2, Rel. 73–6/03) ch. 5.04[2][a],[b], 203–208.
33. On the laws of Party Walls in England, see Robert Megarry and William R. Wade, The Law of Real Property (London, Stevens, 5th ed. 1984) 462–4;
34. In the USA, see: Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender, Vol. 9, Release 74, 3/1996) Ch. 61.
35. Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender, Vol. 2, Release 85, 12/1998) 18A, at 12.1–14.
36. Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property (New York, Mathew Bender, Vol. 2, Release 95, 6/2001) 18A, at 7.
37. See A.H. Oosterhoff and W.B. Rayner, Anger and Honsberger Law of Real Property (Ontario, Canada Law Book, 1985) Vol.2, 1782.
38. On judgmental recognition of air rights in Australia, see Adrian J. Bradbrook, Susan V. MacCallum, and Anthony P. Moore, Australian Real Property Law (North Ryde, LBC Information Services, 2nd ed. 1997) Ch.15, at 14–19.
39. Committee of the Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law, “Model Airspace Act” (1973) 8 Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal 504.
40. J.M. Pedowitz, “Transfers of Air Rights and Development Rights” (1974) 9 Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal 183, at 183.
41. Andrew Alston, Tom Bennion, Michele Slatter, Rod Thomas, and Elizabeth Toomey, Guide to New Zealand Land Law (Wellington, Brooker's, 1997) 604.
42. See also in Oslo: Tor Valstad, “The Oslo Method: A Practical Approach to Register 3D Properties,” International Workshop
43. Helge Onsrud, “Making Laws for 3D Cadastre in Norway,” International Workshop
44. Julius L. Sackman and Russell D. Van Brunt eds. Nichols on Eminent Domain (New York, Mathew Bender, 3rd ed.Vol. 9, Rel.20–11/84) Appendix B-2(0), p. 102.557.
45. Bernard Rudden, “Economic Theory v. Property Law: The Numerus Clausus Problem,” Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 3rd Series, 1987) 239;
46. Hanoch Dagan, “The Craft of Property” (2003) 91 Cal. L. Rev. 1517, at 1567.
47. Theodore B.F. Ruoff, An Englishman Looks at the Torrens System (Sydney, Law Book Co. 1957) 8.
48. Robin Clements and Rod Hager, “Strata Subdivision of Commercial Premises” (1984) LIJ 931.
49. Ruapekapeka Sawmilling Co. Ltd. v. Yeatts [1958] NZLR 265 (sc)
50. Rule 54 of the Land Registration Rules, headed “Registration of a flat, tunnel, etc.”, stipulates:
51. “On the registration of a proprietor of. a cellar or tunnel or other underground space apart from the surface, a plan shall be furnished of the surface under or over which the tenement to be registered lies, and such further verbal or other description as the Registrar may deem necessary, together with notes of any appurtenant rights of access, whether held in common with others or not, or obligations affecting other tenements for the benefit of the tenant the title to which is being registered: Provided that if the applicant leaves in the Registry a reference to the General Map showing with sufficient accuracy the land affected by his application, it shall not be necessary for him to leave, deposit or furnish any plan.” Theodore B.F. Ruoff, Robert. B. Roper, E. John Pryer, Christopher West and Richard Fearnley, The Law and Practice of Registered Conveyancing (London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1991), appendix B, at 24.
52. In the U.S. three methods are recognized for indicating the third dimension (elevation): indicating spot elevations, by means of cross-sections, and by contouring, as is customary in topographical maps. For a description see Julius L. Sackman and Russell D. Van Brunt ed. Nichols on Eminent Domain (New York, Mathew Bender, 3rd ed. Vol. 9 Rel 41–9/95) Ch. 33.0816], pp. 68–72.
53. R. Eldar, ed. “The Survey of Israel” (Jerusalem, State of Israel, 1999), 1.
54. See Jantien Stoter and Martin Salzmann, “Towards a 3D Cadastre; Where do Cadastral Needs and Technical Possibilities Meet?,” International Workshop
55. See Sam Ng'ang'a, Michael Southerland, Sara Cockburn and Sue Nichols, “Toward a 3D Marine Cadastre in Support of Good Ocean Governance,” International Workshop
56. See Dimitris Rokos, “Conceptual Modeling of Real Property Objects for the Helenic Cadastre,” International Workshop
57. Jossef Forrai and Gili Kirschner, “Preparation for Three-Dimensional Digital Cadastre in Israel” Geodesy and Survey 2000 -A Collection of Articles (Jerusalem, The Survey of Israel, 2001) 2.
58. This increased interest produced a number of publications: Moshe Benhamu and Yerah Doytsher, “Research Toward a Multilayer 3D Cadastre: Interim Results,” International Workshop
59. Jad Jarroush and Gilaad Even-Tzur, “Reinstating and Marking Spatial Parcel Boundaries as a Base for 3D Digital Cadastre by Means of Real Time Kinematics GPS,” International Workshop
60. Armi Grinstein, “Different Aspects of a 3D Cadastre in the New Town Modi'in, Israel,” International Workshop
61. Haim Sandberg, “Three-Dimensional Division and Registration of Title to Land: Legal Aspects,” International Workshop
62. See Uri Shoshani, Moshe Benhamu Eri Goshen, Saul Denekamp and Roy Bar “Registration of Cadastral Spatial Rights in Israel - A Research and Development Project” FIG Working Week 2004-Proceedings (International Federation of Surveyors, Athens, 2004) at http-.l I www.fig. net Ipublathens I papers I ts251 TS25_2_Shoshani_et_al.pdf(Last visited 19/09/2004).
63. Benhamu and Doytsher, Registration of Cadastral Spatial Rights in Israel - A Research and Development Project” FIG Working Week 2004-Proceedings, at 40–4.
64. Paraphrase of Jeremy Waldron's definition of collective property and state property in Jeremy Waldron, The Right To Private Property (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1988) at 40 and n. 30.
65. Compare to J.H. Merryman, “Ownership and Estate” (1974) 48 Tulane L. Rev. 916, at 927.
66. Hanoch Dagan, “Takings and Distributive Justice” (1999) 85 Va. L. Rev. 74, at 776;
67. Hanoch Dagan, “Just Compensation, Incentives, and Social Meanings” (2000) 99 Mich. L. Rev. 134, at 136.
68. See J. Rohan and A. Reskin, Condominium Law and Practice (New York, Mathew Bender, Vol. 1, part 1, release 69, 1999) Ch.5 at 4.
69. Section 667 of the Swiss Code stipulates that ownership extends under the surface line “.as far as the exercise of the ownership requires.” The Swiss Civil Code (R. R. Shick tr.) (Westport,Ct, Hyperion Press, 1980) at 158.
70. Section 552 of the Code Civil describes positively the subsurface actions that the owner may perform: “The owner. may do below all the constructions and excavations which he judges proper.” The French Civil Code (John H. Crabb tr.) (New Jersey, Rothman, 1977).
71. Section 490 of the New Code of Louisiana as adopted at the end of 1997, stipulates that: “The owner may make works. below the land as he pleases, and draw all the advantages that accrue from them.” A.N. Yiannopoulos ed. Louisiana Civil Code 1998 (St. Paul, West, 1998) at 96.
72. See also in Boehringer v. Montalto, 142 Misc. 560, 254 N.Y.S. 276
73. (1931): “Title of an owner of the soil will not be extended to a depth below ground beyond which the owner may not reasonably make use thereof” (emphasis added - H.S.).
74. As might be anticipated according to the ruling of United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946).
75. Thomas W. Merrill and Henry E. Smith, “What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?” (2001) 111 Yale L. J. 357, at 389.
76. The opinions were presented in full in Julius L. Sackman and Russell, D. Van Brunt eds. Nichols on Eminent Domain (New York, Mathew Bender, 31 ed. Vol. 9, Rel.20 11/84) Appendix B-2(0), pp. 102,557.
77. See CA 483/86, Birnbach v. Local Planning and Building Committee, 42(3) P.D. 228 [in Hebrew],per President Shamgar.