Court Opinion

ID: 9854200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:02:53.768348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:58.272640
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
The Act of 1897 (Ga. L. 1897, p. 68; Code Ann. § 36-801) gave electric utilities the power to “condemn rights-of-way or other easements.” That act did not give electric utilities the power to condemn land in fee simple.1
The question here is whether the 1967 amendment (Ga. L. 1967, p. 825) authorizing “all other persons, firms and corporations possessing the right or power of eminent domain” to utilize the 1957 Special Master Act, Ga. L. 1957, p. 387; Code Ann. § 36-601a et seq., increased the power of all such persons, firms or corporations to condemn property in fee simple where they previously had only the power to condemn a lesser interest.
The 1957 Special Master Act did not grant to anyone the power of eminent domain. It merely “prescribe [d] an additional procedure for the exercise of the power of eminent domain” (Ga. L. 1957, p. 387; see also section 2 of the act) already granted to the state and its political subdivisions. In Botts v. Southeastern Pipe-Line Co., 190 Ga. 689 (10 SE2d 375) (1940), this court held that a petroleum pipeline company which had not been granted the power of eminent domain did not acquire such power by an amendment to an act authorizing petroleum pipeline companies to utilize a condemnation procedural statute.
As Sadtler v. City of Atlanta, supra (relied upon by the *206majority), expressly pointed out, the City of Atlanta already had the power to condemn property in fee simple for limited access facilities by virtue of a 1955 act, Ga. L. 1955, pp. 559, 562. Sadtler, 236 Ga. at 397.
The “Furthermore” paragraph in Sadtler (236 Ga. at 398), relied upon by the majority here, was surplusage in Sadtler. That is, it was dicta. Moreover, it was erroneous dicta. Botts v. Southeastern Pipe-Line Co., supra. The majority here elevate that erroneous dicta to a holding applicable to every condemning authority in this state (whether public, private or quasi-public/private) which heretofore had a limited power to condemn but was not given by statute the power to condemn in fee simple. In one Evil Kneivel leap, from erroneous dicta into a holding, the majority gives all condemning authorities the power not only to use the Special Master Act procedurally but also the power to condemn in fee simple. In my view that was not the intent of the General Assembly in creating a new procedure, the Special Master Act, for condemnation, nor its intent when in 1967 it amended the “special master procedure” (Ga. L. 1967, p. 825) and added all remaining condemning authorities in this state.
As a result of this decision, under a 50-year federal license the Georgia Power Company will be allowed to condemn land in fee simple to operate not only a hydroelectric pump storage project but also a Disneyland for campers (picnic areas, boat rentals, concession centers, camping areas, trailer parks, fishing areas, hiking trails, etc.) including trailer sites, a general store and a craft shop on the property being condemned (see the report of the special master quoted in Harwell v. Georgia Power Co., 154 Ga. App. 142, supra). Next, the City of Mableton will use the authority granted it by this court under the Special. Master Act to acquire Six Flags Over Georgia. I therefore dissent.

Because statutes delegating the power of eminent domain are in derogation of the property rights of our citizens, such statutes are strictly construed. 10 EGL Eminent Domain, § 4 (1979).