Background
In July 2025, Israeli authorities issued a stop-work order covering an approximately one-dunam encampment containing four residential tents made of blocks and tarpaulins, along with additional tents and tin structures. After a hearing, the Subcommittee for Supervision issued a final stop-work and demolition order and granted a 30-day period during which demolition would be stayed. Daraghma also submitted a request for alternative housing and postponement of the demolition, but the authorities declined to process it because the structures had allegedly been erected within an area covered by a building-prohibition order after that order was issued.
The structures were demolished on August 21, 2025, before the 30-day stay had expired. Daraghma’s later requests for permission to erect tents and for an alternative housing solution went unanswered, and his family erected replacement encampments. He petitioned the High Court of Justice to require consideration and provision of alternative housing, identify the official who rejected his request, prevent his family’s removal, and halt demolition of the replacement tents. He also alleged discriminatory enforcement, denial of a hearing, violations of international law, and unreasonable and disproportionate action.
The respondents sought dismissal because Daraghma could petition the Jerusalem District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs. They argued that both the demolition proceedings and the associated alternative-housing request arose from enforcement under Jordanian Planning Law No. 79 of 1966. Daraghma countered that the housing request was considered by the Civil Administration’s Supervision Unit, rather than a planning institution, and therefore fell outside the administrative court’s statutory jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition in limine because an adequate alternative remedy existed in the Jerusalem Court for Administrative Affairs. Although the Subcommittee for Supervision issues demolition orders while the Supervision Unit considers alternative-housing requests, the latter process arises from, and is inherently connected to, enforcement of the demolition order under section 38 of the Jordanian Planning Law. The administrative court therefore has jurisdiction to consider the entire dispute, including whether alternative housing must be provided as a condition of demolition and whether enforcement must be postponed until such housing is found.
The Court explained that the alternative-housing process developed from the arrangement recognized in Jahalin v. Head of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, under which the authorities could examine an agreed housing solution and defer demolition while regularization was considered. Because such requests concern the manner and timing of executing demolition orders, challenges to them belong in the same court that reviews the underlying enforcement proceedings. Dividing a single factual and legal event between two courts would be undesirable.
The Court expressed no view on the merits and preserved all of Daraghma’s arguments. It continued the interim order for 14 days after service of the judgment so he could apply to the administrative court. No costs were awarded, partly because the authorities had not answered his communications and still had not established a written procedure identifying how alternative-housing requests should be submitted, reviewed, and decided.
Key Takeaways
- The Jerusalem Court for Administrative Affairs may review an alternative-housing decision that arises from a demolition order issued under the Jordanian Planning Law, even when the decision was made by the Civil Administration’s Supervision Unit rather than the planning body that issued the order.
- The High Court’s dismissal rested solely on the availability of an alternative remedy; it did not decide whether Daraghma was entitled to alternative housing or whether the demolitions and related enforcement were lawful.
- The Supreme Court urged the authorities to promptly adopt a formal written procedure governing alternative-housing and demolition-stay requests, including clear identification of the responsible decision-maker.
Why It Matters
The decision directs challenges linking West Bank demolition enforcement with requests for alternative housing to the Jerusalem Court for Administrative Affairs. It confirms that jurisdiction turns on the housing request’s substantive connection to the demolition process, not merely on which administrative unit formally made the challenged decision.
The judgment also highlights a continuing procedural gap: nearly a decade after the Jahalin arrangement, the authorities had not codified the process for seeking alternative housing or delayed enforcement. Although the Court granted no substantive relief, its criticism may encourage clearer procedures and accountability in future cases.