State Roads Commission v. Lancaster

Hammond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On February 21, 1966, the State Roads Commission filed a petition and plat “finalized” by the signature of the Chairman ■of the Commission in the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County to acquire by condemnation from the appellees, the Lancasters, 2,195 square feet in fee simple and a perpetual easement in 3,375 square feet of additional land for drainage facilities, paying $25.00 into court. The land was on the west side of Maryland Route 235 just north of Shangra La Drive in Lexington Park. The Commission entered immediately, and swiftly completed construction of the drainage facilities on the land taken and the construction of the improvements to the road near the property.

Subsequent to the completion of construction, the Property Review Board of St. Mary’s County made an award based on the petition and plat originally filed and its view of the property. The Commission was dissatisfied with the award — approximately a thousand times the amount paid into court — and filed ¹⁵⁶ its condemnation petition, accompanied by the original plat, in the Circuit Court. Some four months later, after various pleadings had been filed, the Commission filed a petition for leave to amend the original petition and plat, alleging that it had “inadvertently” designated 2,195 square feet as being taken in fee and 3,375 square feet being taken as a perpetual easement, whereas the correct areas to be taken were 152 square feet in fee simple and 5,418 square feet as an easement. The property owners objected to the amendment and Judge Dorsey denied permission to amend the original petition and plat.

We think Judge Dorsey acted correctly. LaFontaine’s Heirs v. LaFontaine’s Heirs, 205 Md. 311 ; Concannon v. State Roads Commission, 230 Md. 118, 122-23 ; Concannon v. State Roads Commission, 231 Md. 87, 92-94 . In the last Concannon case, which we find to be completely controlling, the Commission, after a taking under the immediate entry provisions, sought to amend the plat to slightly increase the land taken in fee and slightly decrease the easement area and to change the area taken so that no part of the dwelling was within the easement area, as it originally had been. The trial court permitted the amendment and this Court reversed, saying : “The time of taking in such cases [of immediate entry] has been settled beyond question by our holding in LaFontaine’s Heirs v. LaFontaine’s Heirs, 205 Md. 311 , 107 A. 2d 653 (1954), where Judge Hammond, after a careful review of the authorities, said for the Court (at p. 320 of 205 Md.) that ‘where the State Roads Commission is entitled to act under Section 40B of Article 3 of the Constitution and Section 9 of Article 89B of the Code, and complies with all their requirements, the taking occurs when there is an actual appropriation of the land to highway purposes.’ (Emphasis supplied.) Thus it is plain that the taking of the land and easements here involved occurred when the Commission actually entered upon the property and commenced highway construction on August 1, 1961 — more than nine months before passage of the Circuit Court’s order granting the Commission leave to amend its petition and plat. ¹⁵⁷ “We think that the words which are italicized in the above quotation from the LaPontaine case control our