.Honorable D. C. Greer Opinion No. C- 434 

State' Highway Engineer 

Texas Highway Department Re: Whether the State Highway 

Austin, Texas Commission, under the authority granted by Article 

66738, V.C.S., can legally 

sell surplus land and improvements directly to the 

City of Lamesa for the established value without advertising and without requesting 

sealed bid8 from the general 

Dear Mr. Greer: public under the Pacts statea. 

This is in reply to your letter requesting an opinion from 

this office as to %ðer under the provision8 of Article 

6673a, Vernon's CivzU Statutes, the State Highway CammiSSiOn 

can legally sell certain surplus land and improvements directly.to the City of Damesa for the established value of 

the land ,and improvements, such a sale to be without advert%ising and without requesting 8ealed bid8 from the general 

public. 

According to the fact8 stated,in your letter, the City of 

Lamesa deeded to the State of Texas certain ground8 in 

Dawson County for u8e by the Texas Highway Department a8 a 

maintenance site, without charge to,the State though the 

deed recited a '$10.00 cOn8ideratiOn. your advised that the 

State ha8 since placed valuable improvements. on 'the property. The Highway Department has constructed building8 at 

a new site, leaving the land acquired from the City of 

Lameaa, and the fmprovements located thereon as surplu8. 

The pertinent provisions of Article 6673a provide: 

"Sectionl. Whenever the State Highway' 

C0@&88iOn determine8 that any real p~roperty, 

or interesttherein, heretofore or hereafter 

acquired by the State for highway purposes, 

is no longerneeded for such purposes, and 

in the ca8e of highway right-of-way it has 

-2052- 
, , - - 

Honorable D. C. Greer, page 2 (C-434) 

further determined that such right-of-way 

is no longer needed for use of citizens as 

a road, the State Highway Commission may 

recommend to the Governor that such land 

or interest therein be sold, and the 

Governor may execute a proper deed conveying all the State's rights, title and interest In such land. It shall be the duty 

of the Commission to determine the fair and 

reasonable value of the State's interest in 

such land and to advise the Governor thereOf. All money derived from such sales shall 

be deposited i!ithe State Treasury to the 

credit of the State Highway Fund. Provided 

further, that where right-of-way property 

owned by the State wa8 acquired by a city 

nor county and the State Highway Commission 

determines that said right-of-viay property 

should be sold, such property shall be sold 

with the following priorities: 

"(1) To abutting or adJoining landowners; 

"(2) To original grantors, heLr8 or 

.assigns of the original tract from whence 

the right-Of-Way wa8 conveyed; or 

“(3) To the general public. 

"Notice of said sale shall be advertised 

at least twenty day8 before the day of sale 

by having notice thereoS,published in the 

mllsh IangUage once a week for three consecutive weeks preceding 8UCh.8ale in a new8- 

paper In the county in which the real e&ate 

18 located. Such sale shall be made on a 

sealed bid ba8is,'md said land shall not be 

'8Old for less than the value recommended by 

the State Highway Commission a8 provided above. 

‘Upon recommendation of the State Highway 

Ccmmission, the Governor may execute a proper 

deed exchanging any such real property, or interest therein, either a8 a whole or part consideration, for any other real property, or 

Interest therein needed by the State for high- 

- purposes. 

-205.3- 
Honorable D. C. Greer, page 3 (C-434) 

"Provided further, that upon recommendation OS the State Highway Commission the 

Governor may execute'8 proper deed relinCpiShing and conveying the Statets right, 

title aud interest in such real property 

as follows: 

"(a) IS title.to the State was acquired 

by donation, convey to the grantor, his 

heir8 or assigns; or if acquired by purchase 

by a county or city, convey to the county or 

city, or to the grantor, his heirs or assigns 

at the request of the county or city." 

It.18 the opinion of this office that under the facts stated 

in your'letter the State Highway Commission can, under the 

authority granted by Article 6673a, legally sell the surplus 

land aud Improvements directly to the City of Lamesa for, the 

established value~of the land and improvements. The statute 

clearly provides the authority in such an.instance cited in 

your letter. We call your attention to the last two paragraphs of Article ,6673a above quoted, to the effect that upon 

reconssendation of the State Highway Commission the Governor 

,may execute a proper deed comeylng the State's intereat in 

such real property if title to the State wa8 acquired by 

donation, convey to the grantor.and if acquired by purchase 

by a county or city,,convey to the'county or city, or to 

the grantor, at the request of the~county or city. In the 

first paragraph OS tRi8 statute it is provided that "it 

shall be the duty of the Commission to deters&e the fair 

and reasonable value OS the State's interest in,such land 

and to advise the Governor thereof." 

we do not thi.I& that in an in8taXEe Such a8 th%S the statute require8 notice of the sale to be advertised Qr that 

sealed bid8 be requested from the general public. 

The ca8e of El Paso County v. City of El Paso, 357 .S.W.2d 

783 (Tex.Civ.App. 19621, sets forth certain reasoning which 

We think would apply in this in8tauoe, that 3.8: 

'We think the statutes hereinabove referred 

to do apply wherever a political SUbdiViSiOn, 

subject t0 8uCh 8tatute8, desire8 t0 dispose 

of any of it8 public~land to an .individual or 

private agency, but not where such political 

SUbdiViSiOn with the power of eminent domain 

-2054- 
Honorable D. CL ,Greer, page 4 (C-434) 

and condemnation chooses to deal with it8 

opposite number and reach an agreement as 

to the change of public use, rather than 

to resort to the expensive and tedious 

medium of litigating the entire matter 

through the courts, thereby holding up 

the public benefit and depleting to some 

extent the tax funds of the subdivisions 

involved." 

While the statutes referred to in the El Paso case above 

are Article 1577 and Article 6m8a, thmiple that a 

valid sale can be effected between the State and political 

subdivisions without advertising and requesting sealed bids 

frown the general. public is amply upheld. 

District v. &en&an, 164 S.W.: .__ _~~ 

error ref. w.o.m.), we think applies in&i 

Syllabus tw0 in that Ca8e states: 

The reasoning OS the Court in 

.8 iIl8tanCe. 

"Where land was CO&eyed to a city for 

'.park purposes restricting building thereon 

to the erection of a band etand, and wa8 

later conveyed to 8chOOl district, and city's 

grantor had waived reversion right8 and city 

and school authoritier, had agreed upon u8e of 

the property for school purposes a8 the paramount public 088, condemnation proceeding was 

unnecessary. Vernon*8 Ann.Civ.St. art. 11Ggc." 

&I the kingsville Independent School District case above, 

the court said: 

"The city, .aoting through, its mayor and 

co113i88ioner8, ha8 decided that the park 

would be serving a better public use if 

abandoned as a.park~ and converted to school 

~OSe8. Under 8Uch CirCWWtanCe8 there i8 

no occaeion to litigate the question a8 to 

the paramount public use of the property." 

The court in the kingsville ca8e further stated: 

"Applying the same rule here, if the City 

and the School District can agree upon the 

paramount public u8e of the property, why 

should they be compelled to institute condemnation proceedings?' 

-2055- 
Honorable D. C. Greer, page 5 (C-434) 

We realize, of course, ~that the necessity of condemnation 

proceeding8 was in question in the K 

of 'a sale without advertising and w?&%$%$u::"tz:::;:d 

bids from the general public as in this instance, but the 

authority of ~the City and the School District to agree upon 

the paramount public use of the property as upheld by the 

Court, is applicable here. 

In the case of El Paso County v. ,City of El Paso, supra, the 

court said: 

u In neither opinion city of Tyler v..~. 

&&h'County,~l51 Tex. 80;.246 S.W.2d 601, -: 

and Kingsville Inde enaent School District 

v. Crenshaw, supra doe8 the Supreme Court 

or the Court of C 3? vi1 Appeal8 mention or 

refer to the necessity of complying with 

Article I.577 or Article 60788 of the Texas 

statutes. We think this 18 probably,true 

because Article 1 

use orbenefit. It is difficult to compred why ithe; the Legls.lature through 

A%cle i&7, br. any court, wouid require 

the county to sell land at public auction 

when SUCh land i8 impressed with a public 

use or trust.~ . . ." (Eknphasis Added.) 

Thisland wa8 deeded to the State of Texas for u8e by the 

Texas Highway Department and is State property over which 

the State has-full control and authority. 

'In the absence of constitutional restrictions, the State may sell and di8pO8e of its 

property on it8 own term8 and conditions. And 

legislative enactment8 usually govern the 

manner in which~state land8 may be disposed 

of." 52 Tex.Jur.2d 739, State of Texas, Sec. 

28. 

Article 66na sets forth the manner in which 'the land and 

improvements. in question may be sold. You are therefore 

advised that the State Highway Commission can legally sell 

-2056- 
. . . . 

Honorable D. C. Creer, page 6 (C-434) 

the surplus land and improvements described in your letter, 

to the City of Lamesa for the established value without 

advertising and kithout requesting 

general public. 

SUMMARY 

sealed bids from the 

The?State Highway Commis8ion under the 

authority granted by Article 6673a, V.C.S., 

can legally sell the surplus land and improvements in this instance directly to 

the City of Damesa‘for the established 

value of the land and improvement8 without 

advertising and without requesting sealed 

bid8 from the general public. 

YOU'S very truly, 

WAGGONER &RR 

Attorney General of Texas 

Den M. Harrison 

A8sistatlt 

Bwirasg 

APPkVELk 

OPINIOIV coz&MTE!J 

W. V. Geppert, ahaim 

Arthur Sandlin 

Paul Phy 

James strock 

MiltOn RiChardSOn 

APPROVED~ORTHEA~OMEYGElqERAL 

By: Stanton Stone 

-2057-