Burt v. Department of Transp.

O.C.G.A. § 32-3-1 c, which applies to projects involving the use of right-of-way revolving funds, was inapplicable to plaintiff's suit seeking the right to repurchase condemned property because plaintiff's property was not acquired with such funds.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Hilliard Burt appeals from the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in the declaratory judgment action he brought against the Georgia Department of Transportation. Burt sought a declaration that the Department violated OCGA § 32-3-1 c 1 and that he had the right to repurchase land condemned by the Department in 1977 for a limited access highway and not used for that purpose.1 After the Department answered, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and the trial court granted that of the Department and denied that of Burt. In four enumerations of error, Burt argues that the trial court’s rulings were erroneous because the original taking was unlawful under OCGA § 32-3-1 c 1 and that he has the right under that statute to repurchase the land. We do not agree and we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Department.

Burt and his now-deceased brother were the named condemnees in an action filed by the Department in 1977, in which a parcel of 21.544 acres near Albany was condemned for highway purposes. Judgment of condemnation was entered in 1979. Burt alleges that although the property was cleared almost immediately, no construction ever took place on the property. In 1986, Burt requested of the Georgia Attorney General that he be allowed to repurchase the property, and he was informed that the decision as to whether the property was no longer needed for public road purposes was completely within the discretion of the Department and no requirement existed that the Department dispose of any property.

Burt v. Department of Transp.

O.C.G.A. § 32-3-1 c, which applies to projects involving the use of right-of-way revolving funds, was inapplicable to plaintiff's suit seeking the right to repurchase condemned property because plaintiff's property was not acquired with such funds.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report