The Protection of Agricultural Land Regulations, 2025

The Protection of Agricultural Land Regulations, 2025 (L.N. 150 of 2025), published today, are a targeted response to an increasingly familiar reality: cultivable fields broken into small plots, marketed, sold and used for leisure. With the advent of this new law, this might no longer be possible. These regulations have been made under article 7 of the Agriculture Act (Cap. 639) and apply to land outside the development zone capable of supporting agricultural activity. These rules enter into force two months after publication, with the government announcing 24 September 2025 as the operative date. The Regulations require registration of farmland within six months of commencement and the submission of a crop plan; they also set a baseline obligation to keep land fit for cultivation on a yearly basis.

The declared scope of these regulations is to establish measures and processes to safeguard agricultural land from damages, to promote agronomic viability and to establish the minimum agronomic measures required to ensure that agricultural land is maintained adequately for agricultural purposes.

In other words, the law wants to discourage the exclusive recreational use of agricultural land.

The law clearifies reaffirms the long standing principle that Director’s acceptance or refusal of a registration “shall not grant, recognise or confirm” personal or real rights and is without prejudice to third parties. Owners and farmers must prevent activities that render soil unsuitable, including covering soil with concrete or stones, depositing objects larger than two square metres for more than thirty days, using heavy machinery on waterlogged soil, and constructing non‑essential structures unless permitted by planning policy.

These Regulations deploy two complementary legal devices to discourage commercialisation for non‑agricultural use. First, regulation 10 introduces a blanket prohibition on “any advertisement” that promotes a sale of agricultural land for non‑agricultural purposes. Secondly, regulation 17(d) criminalises conspiring, aiding or abetting “by whatever means, including advertising” to breach the regime. Regulation 9 is possibly the most delicate innovation. Where land remains unregistered, the Director must affix a site notice and publish a Government notice inviting claims; if none are made within three months, Riżorsi Agrikoli Malta (RAM) may register the parcel in its name, acquire effective possession, and allocate it for cultivation. If a valid title is later proved, deregistration follows at the end of the agricultural year, subject to settlement of fines and fees, with the title‑holder also reimbursing RAM’s costs and improvements. There are of course exceptions, such as where registration was impossible and the claimant undertakes to farm (or engage a farmer). In those cases, the title-holder shall be entitled to the payment of any equivalent amount to every payment received by Riżorsi Agrikoli Malta from third parties for such agricultural land, excluding expenses.

Given the apparent expropriatory nature of the law, much of this taking of possession seems to mostly be temporary in nature, seemingly making it easier for the State to defend any case citing the right to property in terms of article 37 of the Constitution and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, the temporary vesting of effective possession to RAM is crafted to keep idle or ownerless land in production, and not to strip owners of title. Both the Maltese Constutional Law and the ECtHR have found laws to be compatible with fundamental human rights requirements where they struck a fair balance between the general interest and the protection of individual rights. A court analysing these rules might therefore ask whether restitution of the land at the end of the agricultural year, coupled with an obligation on the owner to reimburse RAM’s expenses, strikes that fair balance, or whether the interim possession by the State should also carry a compensatory element in the owner’s favour. Whether this law, as currently drafted, is sufficient to withstand constitutional scrutiny remains to be seen.

These rules also provide that an aggrieved person may contest decisions before the Administrative Review Tribunal, with short time‑limits that prioritise certainty. All in all, the regime purports to be proportionate and directed at a legitimate public interest, but its constitutional durability and practical effect will turn on implementation. In short, its success will be proved in application.

---

Disclaimer: This article is not to be construed as being legal advice, and is not to be acted on as such. Should you require further information or legal assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us on info@prolegal.mt.