Tex. Codes » Property Code · TITLE 4. ACTIONS AND REMEDIES · CHAPTER 21. EMINENT DOMAIN
Texas Codes

Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101 (2026)

Right Of Repurchase

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 21.101. RIGHT OF REPURCHASE. (a) A person from whom a real property interest is acquired by an entity through eminent domain for a public use, or that person's heirs, successors, or assigns, is entitled to repurchase the property as provided by this subchapter if:

(1) the public use for which the property was acquired through eminent domain is canceled before the property is used for that public use;

(2) no actual progress is made toward the public use for which the property was acquired between the date of acquisition and the 10th anniversary of that date;

(3) the property becomes unnecessary for the public use for which the property was acquired, or a substantially similar public use, before the 10th anniversary of the date of acquisition;

(4) the entity that acquired the property through eminent domain:

(A) has an obligation to pay ad valorem taxes on the acquired property;

(B) has received a tax bill from the taxing authority for the ad valorem taxes on the acquired property; and

(C) has failed to pay any ad valorem taxes on the acquired property before the third anniversary of the date on which the unpaid taxes became due; or

(5) the entity:

(A) acquired through eminent domain a fee simple interest in the property;

(B) has an obligation to pay ad valorem taxes on the acquired property;

(C) has received a tax bill from the taxing authority for the ad valorem taxes on the acquired property; and

(D) has failed to pay any ad valorem taxes on the acquired property before the third anniversary of the date on which the unpaid taxes became due.

(b) In this section, "actual progress" means the completion of three or more of the following actions:

(1) the performance of a significant amount of labor to develop the property or other property acquired for the same public use project for which the property owner's property was acquired;

(2) the provision of a significant amount of materials to develop the property or other property acquired for the same public use project for which the property owner's property was acquired;

(3) the hiring of or contracting with and the performance of a significant amount of work by an architect, engineer, or surveyor to prepare a plan, plat, or easement that includes the property or other property acquired for the same public use project for which the property owner's property was acquired;

(4) application for state or federal funds to develop the property or other property acquired for the same public use project for which the property owner's property was acquired; or

(5) application for a state or federal permit or certificate to develop the property or other property acquired for the same public use project for which the property owner's property was acquired.

(b-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a navigation district or port authority, or a water district implementing a project included in the state water plan adopted by the Texas Water Development Board, may establish actual progress for purposes of this section by:

(1) the completion of one action described by Subsection (b); and

(2) the adoption by a majority of the entity's governing body at a public hearing of a development plan for a public use project that indicates that the entity will not complete more than one action described by Subsection (b) before the 10th anniversary of the date of acquisition of the property.

(c) A district court may determine all issues in any suit regarding the repurchase of a real property interest acquired through eminent domain by the former property owner or the owner's heirs, successors, or assigns.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1307, Sec. 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2004.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 81 (S.B. 18), Sec. 19, eff. September 1, 2011.

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 86 (S.B. 726), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2021.

Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 938 (H.B. 2011), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: The State of Texas & Kyle Madsen in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of Right of Way v. Jrj Pusok Holdings, LLC (Tex. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The State of Texas & Kyle Madsen in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of Right of Way v. Jrj Pusok Holdings, LLC (Tex. 2026). · cites it 8× “Laws 354 , 361–63 (codified at Tex. Prop. Code §§ 21.101–.103). 39 Id. 12 party’s eminent domain authority or for an injunction to prevent the party from entering or using the property under the party’s eminent domain authority.”
in Re State of Texas (Tex. App. 2020). “” Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101(a) (emphasis added).”
Larry & Shelia Ball v. the City of Pearland (Tex. App. 2021). “1 The statute, subchapter E of the Texas Property Code, allows the person from whom real property was acquired by eminent domain for a public use to repurchase the property if the public use for which it was acquired was canceled before such use, no progress was made toward that…”
James Fredrick Miles v. Texas Cent. R.R. & Infrastructure, Inc. & Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (Tex. 2022). “See TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 21.101–.103. I agree with the Court’s view that it is the Legislature’s province to address the propriety of the remedies available to landowners who find themselves in Texas Central’s path.”
JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC v. the State of Texas & Kyle Madsen in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of Right of Way (Tex. App. 2024). “” See Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101(c). Because both of these statutes solely reference the authority of a “district court,” the Defendants argue that any suit asserting a waiver of immunity under Chapter 21 must be filed in a district court—to the exclusion of county courts.”
David Hornberger, in His Off. Capacity, Ryan Anderson, in His Off. Capacity, Brian Hamilton, in His Off. Capacity, Bonnie Giddens, in Her Off. Capacity, Lisa Krenger, in Her Off. Capacity, Perry Shankle, in His Off. Capacity, Stacy Sharp, in Her Off. Capacity, Dr. Dana Bashara, in Her Off. Capacity, & Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Selina Jones, Roy Hummel & Leslie Michelle Pruitt (Tex. App. 2024). “Most of the references that the Residents rely on are found in Subchapter E, which defines when and how a property owner can repurchase real property from a condemning entity. That right might arise if the public project is cancelled, no progress is made on the project in ten…”
David Hornberger, in His Off. Capacity, Ryan Anderson, in His Off. Capacity, Brian Hamilton, in His Off. Capacity, Bonnie Giddens, in Her Off. Capacity, Lisa Krenger, in Her Off. Capacity, Perry Shankle, in His Off. Capacity, Stacy Sharp, in Her Off. Capacity, Dr. Dana Bashara, in Her Off. Capacity, & Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Selina Jones, Roy Hummel & Leslie Michelle Pruitt (Tex. App. 2024). “Most of the references that the Residents rely on are found in Subchapter E, which defines when and how a property owner can repurchase real property from a condemning entity. That right might arise if the public project is cancelled, no progress is made on the project in ten…”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101(a) — 2 cases
The State of Texas & Kyle Madsen in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of Right of Way v. Jrj Pusok Holdings, LLC (Tex. 2026). “Laws 354 , 361–63 (codified at Tex. Prop. Code §§ 21.101–.103). 39 Id. 12 party’s eminent domain authority or for an injunction to prevent the party from entering or using the property under the party’s eminent domain authority.”
in Re State of Texas (Tex. App. 2020). “” Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101(a) (emphasis added).”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101(a)(1) — 2 cases
David Hornberger, in His Off. Capacity, Ryan Anderson, in His Off. Capacity, Brian Hamilton, in His Off. Capacity, Bonnie Giddens, in Her Off. Capacity, Lisa Krenger, in Her Off. Capacity, Perry Shankle, in His Off. Capacity, Stacy Sharp, in Her Off. Capacity, Dr. Dana Bashara, in Her Off. Capacity, & Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Selina Jones, Roy Hummel & Leslie Michelle Pruitt (Tex. App. 2024). “Most of the references that the Residents rely on are found in Subchapter E, which defines when and how a property owner can repurchase real property from a condemning entity. That right might arise if the public project is cancelled, no progress is made on the project in ten…”
David Hornberger, in His Off. Capacity, Ryan Anderson, in His Off. Capacity, Brian Hamilton, in His Off. Capacity, Bonnie Giddens, in Her Off. Capacity, Lisa Krenger, in Her Off. Capacity, Perry Shankle, in His Off. Capacity, Stacy Sharp, in Her Off. Capacity, Dr. Dana Bashara, in Her Off. Capacity, & Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Selina Jones, Roy Hummel & Leslie Michelle Pruitt (Tex. App. 2024). “Most of the references that the Residents rely on are found in Subchapter E, which defines when and how a property owner can repurchase real property from a condemning entity. That right might arise if the public project is cancelled, no progress is made on the project in ten…”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101(a)(3) — 1 case
The State of Texas & Kyle Madsen in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of Right of Way v. Jrj Pusok Holdings, LLC (Tex. 2026). “Laws 354 , 361–63 (codified at Tex. Prop. Code §§ 21.101–.103). 39 Id. 12 party’s eminent domain authority or for an injunction to prevent the party from entering or using the property under the party’s eminent domain authority.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101(c) — 2 cases
The State of Texas & Kyle Madsen in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of Right of Way v. Jrj Pusok Holdings, LLC (Tex. 2026). “Laws 354 , 361–63 (codified at Tex. Prop. Code §§ 21.101–.103). 39 Id. 12 party’s eminent domain authority or for an injunction to prevent the party from entering or using the property under the party’s eminent domain authority.”
JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC v. the State of Texas & Kyle Madsen in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of Right of Way (Tex. App. 2024). “” See Tex. Prop. Code § 21.101(c). Because both of these statutes solely reference the authority of a “district court,” the Defendants argue that any suit asserting a waiver of immunity under Chapter 21 must be filed in a district court—to the exclusion of county courts.”
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.