Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 23 — PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC SHADE TREES · Chapter 448 — Forests and Wildlife
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-30 (2025)

Leasing of land

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may, for the purposes specified in section 23-29, lease, for a period of not less than ninety-nine years, any lands within the state, title to which has been acquired by the resettlement administration or other agency of the government of the United States, provided the form of such lease shall be approved by the Attorney General. Said commissioner may enter into cooperative agreements with any branch of the government of the United States regarding the custody, management and use of lands so leased. All lands leased under this section shall, for the purposes of taxation, be considered as owned by the state, and the towns in which such lands are situated shall receive from the state grants in lieu of taxes thereon, as provided in section 12-18b.

(1949 Rev., S. 3470; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 195; P.A. 11-80, S. 1; P.A. 15-244, S. 202.)

History: 1971 act replaced references to commission on forests and wild life with references to environmental protection commissioner and substituted Sec. 12-19a for Sec. 12-19; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Commissioner of Environmental Protection” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection”, effective July 1, 2011; P.A. 15-244 replaced reference to Sec. 12-19a with reference to Sec. 12-18b, effective July 1, 2016.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case: Milner v. Comm'r of Corr., 779 A.2d 156 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Milner v. Comm'r of Corr., 779 A.2d 156 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 6× “The court based its decision on Practice Book § 23-30 (b), which requires the respondent to raise as a defense any procedural default in its return.”
Crawford v. Comm'r of Corr., 982 A.2d 620 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 4× “” Practice Book § 23-30 (b); 9 Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 567.”
Johnson v. Comm'r of Corr., 941 A.2d 248 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 3× “The petitioner alleged that his trial counsel had not informed him adequately regarding his sentence and its consequences when he agreed to enter his plea (sentencing claim) and had failed to investigate his case adequately (investigation claim).”
Anderson v. Comm'r of Corr., 971 A.2d 766 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “’ Practice Book § 23-30 (b). ‘If the return alleges any defense or claim that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, and such allegations are not put in dispute by the petition, the petitioner shall file a reply.”
Correia v. Rowland, 820 A.2d 1009 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 3× “He therefore requested that the habeas court vacate his convictions.”
Taylor v. Comm'r of Corr., 936 A.2d 611 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “” In her return to the petition filed pursuant to Practice Book § 23-30, 5 the respondent claimed that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner had procedurally defaulted by having failed to raise his claim either via a motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to…”
Orcutt v. Comm'r of Corr., 937 A.2d 656 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Pursuant to Practice Book § 23-30, 14 the respondent filed a return to the amended habeas petition in which the respondent raised the affirmative defense that the petitioner’s claim was procedurally defaulted because he had failed to pursue it in the trial court or on direct…”
Ankerman v. Comm'r of Corr., 999 A.2d 789 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 5× “The petitioner filed a reply, denying the allegations in the amended return without explanation or elaboration but raised what he termed a “special defense,” claiming that the amended return was defective because the respondent failed to attach a commitment order pursuant to…”
Carpenter v. Comm'r of Corr., 878 A.2d 1088 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 3× “He contended] that the jury never considered the mental state element of recklessness necessary to prove manslaughter, our Supreme Court is without authority to direct a conviction on an offense never considered by the jury, and the manslaughter conviction deprived him of due…”
Mejia v. Comm'r of Corr., 908 A.2d 581 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “Practice Book § 23-30 (b) provides that “[t]he return shall respond to the allegations of the petition and shall allege any facts in support of any claim of procedural default, abuse of the writ, or any other claim that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
Henderson v. Comm'r of Corr., 935 A.2d 162 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “The return was filed December 31, 1998, and the respondent alleged the special defense of procedural default pursuant to Practice Book § 23-30. 6 The petitioner failed to file a reply to the special defense in accordance with Practice Book § 23-31 and never made specific claims…”
Marra v. Comm'r of Corr., 166 A.3d 678 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “" The petitioner later stated that "the allegations are the same in the sense that the allegations are about whether Attorney Riccio had originally done adequately discovery himself, but [there] are new items [that differ from the withdrawn petition that] we feel he could have…”
Show all 46 citing cases →
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-30(b): 7 cases
Marra v. Comm'r of Corr., 166 A.3d 678 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “" The petitioner later stated that "the allegations are the same in the sense that the allegations are about whether Attorney Riccio had originally done adequately discovery himself, but [there] are new items [that differ from the withdrawn petition that] we feel he could have…”
Arroyo v. Comm'r of Corr., 160 A.3d 425 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Ramos v. Comm'r of Corr., 159 A.3d 1174 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Sinchak v. Comm'r of Corr., 163 A.3d 1208 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Merle S. v. Comm'r of Corr., 143 A.3d 1183 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.