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 the contemplation of such a perplexing situation, one must engage in rigorous examination, for the very fabric of justice and morality intertwines with the actions of individuals amidst the turmoil of conflict. The inhabitants of this village, faced with the specter of uncertainty during the tumultuous years of the Iran-Iraq War, have ventured down a path that highlights the tension between adherence to law and the compulsion of necessity. In their quest for security and stability, a number of villagers, driven perhaps by an innate desire for dominion or a misguided interpretation of their right to land, have opted to delineate and occupy portions of the pastoral expanse that has historically served the community as a shared resource. This act of appropriation, while seemingly a pragmatic response to the pervasive instability, raises profound questions about the essence of ownership and the implications of legal authority. Conversely, we find those who adhere resolutely to the tenets of law, believing firmly in a communal order that must not be disrupted, yet inadvertently find themselves marginalized in a world where power often trumps principle. The paradox lies in the reality that those who embraced the rules of civilized conduct have suffered the consequences of others' transgressions, suggesting an unsettling dynamic where virtue does not guarantee protection from the whims of assertive individuals. After four decades, the recurrence of these actions, spurred by a nostalgic recollection of the benefits reaped from prior seizures, reveals a cyclical nature of human behavior rooted in a flawed understanding of tenure and rightful possession. It prompts one to reflect: should the regulatory body, in this case, the ministry of roads and urban development, simply act as an arbiter enforcing the law as written, or must it also embody a pragmatic approach that considers the historical context and the collective well-being of the community? The rights of the villagers, weighed against the obligations of the state to maintain public order and equity, create a complex interplay where perhaps neither side holds absolute claim. Thus, I find myself pondering the nature of justice itself—does it reside in the rigid application of statutes or in the pursuit of an equitable resolution that acknowledges the historical injustices and the shared human experience? In the end, to achieve a harmonious coexistence, the ministry must engage in dialogue with those who trespass, educate them upon the fallibility of their claims to land that belongs to the public sphere, while simultaneously considering restitution that encompasses both the past and the aspirations of a community striving to rebuild its fabric amidst the echoes of a troubled past.