The loss of land for the CPK does not only affect the person listed in the land and mortgage register. For a farm, it may be equally important to determine who actually uses the land, who incurred the costs, who sowed the crops, and the terms of the lease or rental agreement.
In today's article from the "Lawyer on the Road" series, we discuss a situation in which a property included in a CPK investment is used by someone other than the owner. The implementation of the investment and related developments is a public purpose, and in matters not regulated by the CPK Act, the Real Estate Management Act, among others, applies accordingly.
The owner loses the property, but he should not lose control of the matter
The owner or perpetual user is the primary addressee of the decision leading to the acquisition of real estate, and it is essentially their right that is the subject of expropriation. The CPK Act explicitly states that whenever it refers to the owner in this regard, it also includes the perpetual user.
The owner is responsible for the proceedings regarding the investment location, acquisition of rights, and determination of compensation. Compensation is to be determined according to the principles set forth in the CPK Act and, accordingly, the Real Estate Management Act, with the special purpose vehicle carrying out CPK tasks paying compensation related to the acquisition of the property.
It's also worth remembering that compensation doesn't have to apply solely to ownership or perpetual usufruct. Under the Real Estate Management Act, expropriation may also encompass other property rights to real estate, and their expiration or limitation should be taken into account when determining compensation. This applies, for example, to usufruct, easement, or mortgage, depending on the content of the right and its disclosure. Leases and tenancies, however, remain contractual relationships, not limited property rights.
In practice, an owner should not assume that simply determining the land value will resolve the matter. If the property is leased, it is worth immediately determining whether the land contains crops, equipment, outbuildings, installations, perennial plantings, or other outlays, and who actually owes them. This can affect not only the valuation but also the settlement between the owner and the user of the land.
The tenant and lessee are not in the same situation as the owner
The lessee generally uses the property for rent, while the lessee has the right not only to use the leased property but also to collect profits from it. In the realities of agricultural holdings, the difference is fundamental: the lessee can continue production, incur costs, and expect a harvest that will not be obtained if the land is acquired before the end of the season.
However, the mere existence of a lease or tenancy relationship does not make the tenant or lessee the owner of the property and does not automatically entitle them to full compensation for the loss of land. Expropriation is a concept that primarily applies to rights to real estate, and the CPK Act refers unregulated matters to the provisions of the Real Estate Management Act.
This doesn't mean that the land user is left without protection. Their situation may result from the contract's content, the rules for settling expenses, provisions for early termination of the contract, claims against the owner, and, in certain circumstances, the need to demonstrate their own interest in the proceedings. The problem is that a tenant's claim for lost crops, expenses, or early termination of the field should not be automatically equated with compensation from the owner for the property itself.
The agreement matters, but it won't stop investment
The first scenario is as follows: the owner leased 12 hectares of land for ten years, and the lessee incurred costs to improve soil quality, sowed crops, and planned further production. The property then enters the CPK implementation process. While determining compensation for the acquired right is paramount for the owner, the lessee's key considerations are the provisions of the agreement regarding expenditures, profit settlement, notice period, and documents confirming actual costs incurred.
The second scenario concerns the tenant of a house or apartment located on a property being acquired for investment. The tenant may incur relocation costs, face difficult living conditions, and lose the ability to continue using the property. However, their protection will primarily depend on the type of agreement and the specific actions taken by the owner and the authority. The CPK Act authorizes the SPV to implement support programs for individuals selling real estate under special voluntary acquisition principles. Support may include, in particular, material assistance related to the move, reimbursement of certain public levies, and reimbursement of expenses related to relocating or conducting business. However, the Act leaves it up to the SPV to determine the principles and procedures for implementing these programs, while ensuring equal treatment of participants and a mechanism for handling complaints and requests.
These benefits are not part of the administrative compensation established in the property acquisition decision. They are an instrument associated with the voluntary transfer of real estate under the terms of the program (in practice, the PDN or KPDN) and are available only within the program's regulations and the terms of the specific transaction. This does not constitute an automatic, statutory benefit for every tenant or lessee.
How can a lawyer help?
In such a situation, the law firm can handle the case from start to finish: analyze the lease or tenancy agreement, assess the rules for settling expenses and benefits, prepare a position for the authority or the other party, and ensure that deadlines resulting from delivered letters and decisions are met.
In matters concerning the CPK, official correspondence should not be treated as useless spam. For the owner, it may signal the need to defend the property's value, and for the lessee or tenant, the need to quickly secure evidence and determine from whom and on what basis a settlement can be sought. The sooner the contract and the factual circumstances are analyzed, the greater the chance of avoiding a dispute over expenditures only after the land has been lost.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of August 5, 2026.
Author:
Series editor:
