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 contemplating the affairs of a certain village in the fateful year of 1359, amid the tumult of the Iran-Iraq War, one finds oneself in the intricate web of human behavior, law, and justice. It is apparent that the villagers, driven by a complex confluence of necessity and opportunism, began to encroach upon the designated boundaries of their grazing pastures, marking their territory amidst the chaos surrounding them. This endeavor, albeit bereft of lawful grounding, reflects a primal instinct for survival and acquisition, which often overshadowed the principles of order that some of the village inhabitants clung to with steadfast resolve. Thus emerges the dichotomy of the compliant versus the opportunistic. Those who sought to adhere to the law, who harbored an earnest desire for societal harmony, found themselves at a considerable disadvantage, as the usurpers, emboldened by their initial successes, expanded their claims, accumulating parcels of land that spanned no less than five thousand square meters. Fast forward four decades, and historical echoes reverberate with a resurgence of similar assertions, as new divisions of land are once again perceived ripe for the taking. Their actions carry a dual weight; on one hand, they express a distrust of the established order, while on the other, they bask in the ephemeral sweetness of past triumphs over legal confines. Yet, within this labyrinth of ethical quandaries, one must ask: what recourse is available to the guardians of law—the agency of Roads and Urban Development—when faced with such blatant transgressions? Is it not the sine qua non of a civilized society to uphold the sanctity of property rights? The authority vested in this agency is not merely an abstraction; it is a manifestation of collective will, designed to safeguard the principles of equity and justice for all. In contemplating their next steps, the agency must weigh the societal implications of passive leniency against the necessity of restitution. The villagers who endeavor to assert their claims must be reminded of the enduring nature of law, and that their interests cannot prevail over the well-being of the greater community, particularly when all is documented and defined within legal bounds. Thus, one finds solace in the notion that true adherence to law does not diminish individuals but rather elevates them, leading them toward a collective flourishing that transcends mere possession and fosters a harmonious existence. Indeed, it is through such reflection that we may arrive at a synthesis of legal integrity and ethical responsibility, paving the way for a just resolution amidst the turbulent legacy of human actions.