An Analysis of the Jurisprudential Foundations of Regulations Restricting Proprietary Rights over Land and Real Property in the Iranian Criminal Legal System

Abstract

Private ownership is one of the fundamental rights of individuals and an institution protected under Imāmī jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system. Nevertheless, the exercise of proprietary rights over land and real property is neither absolute nor unlimited because of its connection with natural resources, environmental protection, and the public interest. The principal issue addressed in the present study is the jurisprudential foundations of regulations restricting proprietary rights and the extent to which these foundations can justify the criminalization of owners’ conduct and the imposition of criminal sanctions. The study adopts a jurisprudential–legal approach and employs a descriptive–analytical method. Its data were collected from sources of Imāmī jurisprudence, relevant laws and regulations, and legal scholarship. The findings indicate that the rule of dominion (qāʿidat al-taslīṭ) establishes, as a general principle, the owner’s authority to lawfully possess, use, and benefit from property; however, principles such as the no-harm rule (lā ḍarar), preservation of social order, public interest, and the powers of the Islamic governing authority constitute the principal jurisprudential grounds for restricting proprietary rights. Nevertheless, the legitimacy of restrictions on ownership does not necessarily entail the legitimacy of criminalization and punishment. Recourse to criminal law is defensible only where the owner’s conduct causes serious and demonstrable harm or risk, possesses sufficient criminal blameworthiness, and administrative and civil sanctions are inadequate to prevent or remedy its consequences. The findings further demonstrate that the fragmentation of regulations, ambiguity in the boundary between criminal offenses and administrative violations, the expansive interpretation of public interest, and the disproportionality of certain sanctions are among the most significant challenges in this field. Accordingly, criminal intervention should be confined to intentional, serious, repeated conduct that causes substantial harm or creates a serious risk, while administrative and civil-law instruments and mechanisms for restoration of the prior state should be prioritized in other cases. Ultimately, the study emphasizes the need to give precedence to preventive approaches and non-criminal measures, clarify the constituent elements of offenses, observe the principle of proportionality, and establish an appropriate balance between the protection of private property and the safeguarding of public interests.