Three years ago, the Andalusian Supreme Court (TSJA) ruled in favour of Alhama and established that the boundary between the two towns corresponded to the demarcations set out in a report from 1893 and in survey books from 1895.

However, Zafarraya appealed and the decision and now a new ruling, handed down recently, reversed the previous one in favour of that town, which had requested that the boundary line be the one established in 1872. While Zafarraya welcomes the decision, Alhama will lodge an application for annulment and hopes that the constitutional court will have the final say. The area in dispute throughout this period amounts to some 1,300 hectares, mostly public woodland used for hunting and grazing.

The judgement of the TSJA, to which IDEAL has had access, upholds the appeals lodged by both Zafarraya town hall and the Andalusian regional government against the previous judgement. The ruling refers to the technical criteria used to establish the boundary line, opting for the boundary line laid down in 1872.

To understand this historical conflict, one of the key turning points to consider took place in 2019. It was then that the regional government issued an order that was in line with Zafarraya’s request. It recognised as valid the boundary established following a demarcation carried out in April 1872.

The order was based on various historical documents including a certificate from the secretary of Zafarraya. It also referred to an official letter dated 15 April of that year from the civil government of Granada, signed and sent to Zafarraya, regarding the approval of that boundary demarcation, as well as a resolution from the Ministry of Agriculture in 1956 concerning the demarcation of the ‘Monte del Pueblo de Zafarraya’, which makes constant reference to the 1872 boundary demarcation record.

Following that order issued by the regional government in 2019, Alhama town hall lodged an appeal, which led the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Andalusian High Court to rule on this matter. Alhama town hall sought a ruling that the boundary between its municipality and that of Zafarraya corresponds to the alignments, landmarks and boundary markers set out in a record dating from 1893 and in survey books from 1895.

In that judgement, handed down in 2023, the TSJA upheld the appeal lodged by Alhama town hall and confirmed that the 1872 boundary demarcation "was not, as far as is known, carried out by mutual agreement between the local councils". It even pointed out that Alhama town hall did not take part in the subsequent proceedings "due to its express disagreement".

It acknowledged, however, that there was also no evidence to prove that there had been an agreement regarding the 1893 boundary demarcation and recalled that there had been another demarcation in 1767 "which was rejected". The ruling concluded: "In short, the only demarcation assessed in the administrative file that allows us to ascertain with the necessary precision the boundary line established at the time is that of 1893 and the subsequent field survey book of 1895."

The ruling was then appealed by the Andalusian regional government and Zafarraya town hall, before the Supreme Court. They argued that the boundary line established in 1872 was considered the oldest and, furthermore, coincided with the dividing line between two public forests. The Supreme Court has now handed down its ruling; it has once again ruled in favour of Zafarraya and confirmed the 1872 boundary line.

IDEAL has contacted the two town halls to ask for their reactions. Rosana Molina, the mayor of Zafarraya, explained that this ruling “does justice” and brings “an end to a dispute lasting more than 200 years”. She went on to say, “I still maintain that there is a physical fence there that was erected 30 years ago with the agreement of both local councils." She added that she was pleased with the ruling at that "it was a matter of dignity for the people of Zafarraya; there have been disputes and trespassings over this issue". Even so, she insists that here “nobody wins or loses”, as both towns “are twins” and maintain a “good” relationship.

By contrast, the mayor of Alhama de Granada, Jesús Ubiña, has expressed his “outrage” at this change of course. “The judges should have discussed the matter to ensure they applied the same criteria,” he said, adding that the town hall intends to lodge an appeal for annulment, which he hopes will pave the way for them to take the case to the Constitutional Court. “What has happened is very strange and we are going to try to have the case reviewed to see if there has been any error. The criteria should have been standardised; it makes no sense that this change has taken place,” the mayor concluded.

Read comprehensive news from Andalucía.