The purpose of the diploma paper is to analyze the assessment of the change of remaining land and other real estate due to construction in public benefit. First, I analyzed a fundamental legal regulation on land expropriation in the Republic of Slovenia, the Spatial Planning Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 110/2002). I focused on determining the compensations. For comparison I gave two examples of determining the compensations in the Republic of Poland and in the Federal Republic of Germany. Further on in the paper, I made the analysis of assessment reports and analysis of how the side costs are included in the case of real estate redemption, instead of expropriating real estate in the area of municipalities Ormož and Ptuj. I found out that in assessments of agricultural land values, appraisers estimate the side costs on administrative basis. I also analyzed examples of facilities for public benefit built in the area of Ljutomer and Ptuj municipalities, and the chances of estimating the relative change in real estate value in the vicinity caused by building facilities for public benefit. The exact influence on the change in value could not be identified because of inadequate data. In the survey, I tried to find out about changes in values of construction lots, caused by built facilities for public benefit like graveyard, primary school, home for people with dementia, old people's home, garbage dump and main road. Most of the local private owners are of the opinion that the real estate value stays the same despite the fact that facilities of public interest are built nearby. The majority of others are of the opinion that the real estate nearby the graveyard, garbage dump and main road is of lesser value. It is interested to note that the detailed analysis of the questionnaire shows, that there is no difference in the opinions among private real estate owners of the local estates and other inhabitants, about the change of the real estate value in the vicinity of the primary school and home for people with dementia. For half of the interviewees (53,3 %) in the group of local private real estate owners, the home for people with dementia is disturbing. For the majority in other group (67,4 %), this facility is not disturbing. This fact can also be attributed to the small number of nearby private estate owners
