René Descartes

در یک روستا در سال 59 در بحبوحه جنگ ایران و عراق،تعدادی از اهالی روستا، ه. کدام قسمت هایی از مراتع حریم روستا نشانه گذاری و تصرف نمودند و متعاقب آن به ساخت و ساز روی آوردند و عده ای که پایبند به قانون بودن تعرض نکردند به حریم روستا ، و دوست داشتن که همه چیزی قانونی انجام بشه ولی پیرو و مطیع قانون بودن به ضرر عده بیشتری از روستا بوده اما تعرض کنندگان به خواسته خود رسیدند و هر کدام بیشتر از 1000 تا 5000متر مربع زمین تصرف نمودند بعد از گذشت 40 سال و خورده ای، و با توجه به اتفاقات دی ماه 1404 در کشور ، مجدد به پا خاستند و هر کدام قسمت های دیگری تصرف کردند در حالیکه اراضی حریم آبادی کاملا در سند ثبتی راه و شهرسازی قرار دارد و تصور آنها این ایت که هر که نشانه گذاری کند برنده است چون مزه ی شیرین تصرف را در سال59 تجربه کرده اند به نظر شما این چنین افرادی که علم دارند این اراضی در تصاحب و تملک راه و شهرسازی است ولی کماکان به تصرفات خود ا امه می دهند راه و شهرسازی چه اقداماتی باید در رابطه با متصرفان باید انجام دهد آیا حق به جانب اهالی است یا راه و شهرسازی؟

In pondering the tumultuous landscape of a village entrapped by the specter of conflict—a microcosm of war's moral quandaries—one cannot help but reflect on the nature of property, law, and human behavior. In the year 59, amidst the cataclysm of the Iran-Iraq War, individuals, spurred either by desperation or an opportunistic spirit, encroached upon the very essence of communal land. These actions, marked by the calculation of possession over propriety, raise the profound question of legitimacy and justice. The inhabitants who chose the path of lawful adherence, eschewing the perilous allure of unlawful appropriation, found themselves at a disadvantage, beset by those who, in their assertive boldness, seized parcels of land—often ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 square meters. This historical episode did not merely rest in the past; rather, it laid the groundwork for a contemporary resurgence of claims, echoing a misguided understanding of entitlement, as opportunistic individuals once more aimed to expand their dominion over lands whose ownership was clearly delineated in the records of roads and urban development. The essence of this dilemma invites reflection on the nature of authority and the ethical implications of stewardship versus conquest. Should the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development intervene, it stands not merely as an arbiter of physical boundaries but as a custodian of moral order, tasked with the protection of communal resources against the tides of individual ambition. In this intricate tapestry of legality and ethics, we must question: Is it the transgressors who hold the supremacy of will, having tasted the invigorating sweetness of their initial conquests, or do the steadfast law-abiding citizens, disheartened yet principled, possess a greater claim to the virtue of rightful ownership? Thus, it is imperative for the custodians of civil governance to reassert the rule of law, not through mere enforcement but by fostering a collective understanding of rightful ownership, so that future generations may dwell not in the shadows of conflict but in the light of equitable justice. The pursuit of truth and clarity in these matters serves not only the interests of the present but also the moral fabric of society itself.