Judicial principles and studies
Compensation for Damage to Remaining Land Caused by Expropriator's Works
A concise summary of judicial criteria for awarding compensation for harm to the remaining parcel resulting from an expropriator's works under Article 10(h) of the Expropriation Law.
Compensation and insurance
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
A concise summary of judicial criteria for awarding compensation for harm to the remaining parcel resulting from an expropriator's works under Article 10(h) of the Expropriation Law.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
An overview of the judicial conditions applied under Article 10(h) of the Expropriation Law for awarding compensation for damage to the remaining portion of land caused by the expropriator's works.
Summary
- The legislature did not set detailed criteria for assessing such compensation, leaving this to judicial interpretation based on the cited provision. - Requirements for a valid compensation claim include: the occurrence of expropriation; proof of damage to the portion of the land outside the expropriated area; and that the damage resulted from physical works carried out by the expropriator within the expropriated parcel. - A causal link between the physical works and the damage is essential to apply the compensation rule. - A mere change in the shape of the remaining parcel (for example becoming irregular or triangular) is not automatically compensable unless shown to stem from physical acts outside the expropriated area. - In the presented material, no evidence was shown that the defendant performed physical or legal acts beyond the purpose of expropriation inside or outside the expropriated land; therefore the experts' valuation lacked a proper legal basis. - Expert opinion is not binding on the court under Article 86 of the Civil Procedure Law; accordingly that compensation element was excluded from the expert report and not adopted. This summary is an educational overview and does not constitute judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
An overview of the judicial conditions applied under Article 10(h) of the Expropriation Law for awarding compensation for damage to the remaining portion of land caused by the expropriator's works.
Summary?
- The legislature did not set detailed criteria for assessing such compensation, leaving this to judicial interpretation based on the cited provision. - Requirements for a valid compensation claim include: the occurrence of expropriation; proof of damage to the portion of the land outside the expropriated area; and that the damage resulted from physical works carried out by the expropriator within the expropriated parcel. - A causal link between the physical works and the damage is essential to apply the compensation rule. - A mere change in the shape of the remaining parcel (for example becoming irregular or triangular) is not automatically compensable unless shown to stem from physical acts outside the expropriated area. - In the presented material, no evidence was shown that the defendant performed physical or legal acts beyond the purpose of expropriation inside or outside the expropriated land; therefore the experts' valuation lacked a proper legal basis. - Expert opinion is not binding on the court under Article 86 of the Civil Procedure Law; accordingly that compensation element was excluded from the expert report and not adopted. This summary is an educational overview and does not constitute judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance?
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Work and employment
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Legal consultation and studies
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.