Initially Saxon Law was in place but t after 1066 all the land belonged to the King and the Landowners did with it what they pleased but paid taxes and supplied troops from time to time. Earlier I quoted sources regarding US Law.
No one but you cares, because everyone but you realizes that
1)it is totally irrelevant, and
2) you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to the realities in the USA.
That was a reply to Nice Squirrel which is relevant
No one is saying much about realties in the US so I posted this a few posts back
ince no one has offered any website or other source, I shall do this.
For convenience I went to FINDLAW. Throughout there is mention of fair compensation which you hear in UK Law My own feeling was that the US government doesn't just seize land or force a price.
However I don't think i will be far off if I mention that each case is looked at individually, where in a court there would also be precedent to draw upon.
Here is the reference
http://realestate.findlaw.com/land-u...ublic-use.html
QUOTE: Eminent domain is the power of government to take private land for public use. This power is limited by the federal Constitution and by state constitutions -- when the government does take private property for public use, it must fairly compensate the owner for the deprivation. Sometimes the operation of eminent domain is a straightforward matter, with the government providing the landowner a fair price, and the landowner yielding the property to public use. At other times, however, government and the landowner may disagree over whether a taking has occurred, and how much compensation is due.
History of "Eminent Domain"
The law of eminent domain derives from the so-called "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment, which states, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The men who created the Constitution were, for the most part, landholders with a certain mistrust of government power. To protect private landholders from abuses by government, the Founders limited the government's power to take property. At that time, the government action they likely envisioned was seizure of the land and its occupation by government. As the country's population continued to grow, however, local governments began to place increasing controls on the use of land. Where landowners believed that these restrictions impeded their use of the property, or damaged its value, they began to argue that these restrictions also constituted a taking of their land requiring adequate compensation. At first, the courts were reluctant to hear these claims. Over time, however, courts began to recognize them, adding a new dimension to the law of eminent domain.
The Fifth Amendment "Takings" Clause
The "Takings" Clause of the Fifth Amendment has several important components. First, it applies only to private property. Should the government decide to change the use of some piece of public land, i.e. build a bus terminal on what had been a public park, that action would not compel the government to pay citizens who used the park. It's possible, however, that the new use might infringe the rights of neighboring landowners so much that they could sue anyway, equating the infringement of their property rights with an outright taking of their land. This process, known as an inverse condemnation proceeding, is discussed below.
The second requirement under the Fifth Amendment is that the land be taken for public use. This limitation prevents government officials from taking private land for their own purposes. For example, a member of Congress could not take the home of a private citizen for his or her own use under eminent domain. Sometimes, however, courts have upheld takings that ultimately resulted in a private party possessing the land. This has occurred, for example, to allow expansion of an auto plant felt to be beneficial to the local economy, and in instances of urban renewal, where a new neighborhood goes up in place of an old and dilapidated one.
"Just" Compensation
Finally, the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation. Fair compensation is typically determined using the market value of the land, that is, the price for which the landowner could reasonably expect to sell the land to some other buyer. What the land is worth depends on many things, including the size of the property and the buildings, crops, or timber upon the land. For permanent takings, courts use one of several methods to determine market value. Where the government's use of or encroachment upon the property is of limited duration or scope, the calculation of value may be trickier.
The Eminent Domain Process
In the classic case of eminent domain, the government determines that it needs certain privately owned land to create some public benefit, such as construction of a new highway. The government may offer the landowner a price to which he or she agrees, or it might initiate what is called a condemnation proceeding, when they cannot agree on value. The property owner has a right to notice of the government's decision and an opportunity to respond, and to just compensation for the land taken. The government pays the landowner, the landowner leaves the property, and the government builds the road.
My pre emptive point would be that any dispute would most likely be as to what a fair price is.
UNQUOTE
My quote was in response to the concept of the government seizing the land which it cannot do unless there are certain breaches in the law that warrant this.
