Illegal Beach Encroachment in Ashkelon: Court Rules Against Restaurant Owners
The company Ananas Beach attempted to challenge an eviction order for state lands, but the court ruled in favor of the Israel Land Authority. The restaurant owners must pay 10,000 shekels in legal costs.
The saga regarding the beach in Ashkelon has reached a conclusion: The Magistrate's Court in Ashkelon has rejected a request to cancel an eviction order for public land, issued by the Israel Land Authority (ILA) following an encroachment on the Ananas beach.
The court's decision concerns a request by Ananas Beach Ltd. to cancel an eviction order for an area where the company operates a restaurant while encroaching on state lands without the approval of the Israel Police, as required by the Business Licensing Law. The court canceled the stay of execution order that had been granted ex parte and ordered the company to pay the state 10,000 shekels in legal costs, determining that the request was submitted while concealing material facts and presenting a partial factual picture.
The ILA, represented by Adv. Tehila Shimshon-Harmel from the Southern District Attorney's Office (Civil), argued that Ananas Beach and Nof El HaYam abused legal proceedings to challenge a final order by utilizing a separate legal entity. It was further argued that the order was served lawfully as early as October 2025, and that the previous holder of the area was aware of it and had vacated the site accordingly.
According to the state, renting the area to another company and subsequently re-seizing it does not constitute a change of circumstances requiring a new order. Under the Public Land Law, when an area is re-seized within a year of eviction, the Authority is authorized to carry out a re-eviction based on the existing order.
The court accepted the state's position, confirming that the order was served lawfully and that the ILA is authorized to carry out a re-eviction. In his verdict, Judge Ido Kafkafi noted:
"The question of whether the applicant herself knew or did not know about the order is irrelevant... From the Authority's point of view, this is an order that was executed, but the area was re-seized and the previous order remains in force; there is no need to act again to issue a new order."
He further added that the previous holder of the area was well aware of the order's boundaries, and that the applicant could have contacted the Authority to clarify its applicability.
