Unauthorised deviation from the land use and protection project (Art. 54)

Loading…

How much is the fine under Article 54?

The article provides for a fine of 300 to 500 lari. The exact figure is set somewhere in that band, and the article itself lists no criteria for choosing it. No other sanction is provided for in this provision.

I am the owner but a contractor did the work. Am I the one who pays?

Liability follows the person who carried out the work departing from the project, or on whose instruction it was carried out. If a contractor or lessee performed it, that has to be shown with documents — the contract, the acceptance record, the correspondence — rather than asserted at the hearing.

Can the decision be appealed?

Yes. The body to appeal to and the period for doing so are stated on the decision itself; Article 54 does not set them. Read that part of the document the day it arrives and note the date in writing: letting the period lapse becomes a separate problem on top of the original one.

If I restore the plot to its previous condition, does the fine go away?

Article 54 provides no such ground, so restoration does not automatically remove liability. It is still worth putting before the decision-maker: the sanction is a range, so the question of the amount remains open even where the offence itself is not in dispute.

The protocol describes work I never carried out. What now?

Put the discrepancy in writing as early as possible and support it with material — photographs, work logs, the part of the project that covers the disputed volume. An objection made orally and never entered into the file tends to disappear by the time the case is examined.

4 min·22 Aug 2026

What deviating from the project actually means

A land use and protection project is the approved document that sets out how a particular plot is to be worked and what measures are to be taken to protect the land itself. Article 54 of the Georgian Administrative Offences Code does not punish the work. It punishes the gap between the approved document and what was actually done, in circumstances where no appropriate permission was obtained for that difference. Three elements have to line up before the article applies: an approved project exists, the work departs from it, and no permission covers the departure. Remove any one of the three and the article does not bite.

Liability attaches to the person who carried out the work, or on whose instruction it was carried out. In practice that may be the owner of the plot, a lessee or other user, or a contractor engaged to perform construction, earthmoving or land reclamation work. If your plot was leased out and somebody else did the work, that is a material fact, but a statement at the hearing will rarely carry it on its own. A contract, an acceptance record or correspondence showing who actually performed the work is what makes the point stand.