licy, pursued until
the spring of 1968, of treating land as a free good and assigning no
value to it in calculating the cost of industrial and housing investment
projects. Arable land was especially attractive to builders because it
required no expenditure for leveling.

In an attempt to prevent further waste of valuable farmland, a law for
the protection and conservation of agricultural land was passed in May
1968. The law prohibited the diversion of farm acreages to
nonagricultural uses, with the exception of special cases which,
depending upon the nature and location of the land involved, required
the approval of either the Council of State, the Council of Ministers,
or the Superior Council of Agriculture (a government agency that
functioned in lieu of a ministry for several years). Nonagricultural
state organizations that held land that they could not cultivate were
obligated to surrender it without payment to neighboring state or
collective farms.

The conservation law enjoined socialized (collective and state) farms
and private farmers to put all land to optimum use; called for a review
of the building code to reduce the land areas allowed to individual
construction projects; provided for the inclusion of the value of land
in construction costs; and spelled out various other measures to
safeguard and improve agricultural land. The law also directed the
establishment of a land register, excluding lands of the socialized
farms, to facilitate stricter controls over the remaining private
farmers, who held 9.2 percent of the agricultural land and 4.6 percent
of the arable acreage.

Heavy fines and criminal penalties, including imprisonment up to one
year, were provided for infringements of the conservation law by
enterprises and individuals. During the first year of the law's
operation, fines were also to be imposed upon holders of uncultivated
arable land, of improperly maintained orchards and vineyards, and of
meadows and pastures on which maintenance work did not comply with
agrotechnical rules. Like the establishment of the land register, this
provision was also aimed at private farmers. A further provision stated
that lands on which the described conditions continued after the first
year were to be assigned to socialized farms for cultivation. The
transferred land could be subsequently restored to the original owners
under conditions prescribed by the Superior Council of Agriculture. The
effect of the punitive