Short answer. No, not freely. Rule 67 provides that after an order of expropriation is rendered, the plaintiff — the government — shall not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable, so abandonment requires the court's approval on fair terms, not a unilateral withdrawal.

What the law says

After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable.

Rule 67, Section 4 — Order of expropriation. Read the full provision →

What produces the order you are describing

Rule 67, Section 4 describes when a court issues this order: if the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint. Once your objections were overruled and this order issued, the case moved past the stage of simply proving the government's right to take the land.

Dismissal after that point is restricted, not free

The rule directly restrains what the government can do once the order is in place: after the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable. The government cannot simply walk away from the case on its own initiative at this stage — dismissal or discontinuance requires the court to set the terms, and those terms must be just and equitable to you as the landowner.

Why this restriction exists once the order has issued

Before this order, the case is still contesting whether the government has the right to expropriate at all, so allowing withdrawal is less disruptive. Once the court has already declared the right to expropriate, the landowner has likely relied on that determination and incurred costs and disruption because of it. Restricting dismissal to court-set, just and equitable terms protects against the government simply dropping the case after putting the landowner through that process, without accounting for what the landowner has already borne.

The right to appeal doesn't change any of this

Rule 67 also addresses what happens if the order is appealed: a final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however, shall not prevent the court from determining the just compensation to be paid. So even while an appeal of the order is pending, the case keeps moving toward fixing just compensation — it does not simply stall, and it does not give the government a separate path around the dismissal restriction above.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.