Legal experts challenge legality of evictions from expropriated land in rural Damascus

Residents of the Al-Bajaa area in rural Damascus told our agency that since the beginning of June they have received eviction notices issued by the Al-Saboura Municipal Council, ordering them to vacate their homes within 15 days. The notices are based on the claim that the area had been expropriated decades ago in favor of the General Housing Establishment.

Al-Bajaa lies within the administrative boundaries of Al-Saboura town in western Rural Damascus, near the Damascus–Beirut international highway. The area combines agricultural and residential characteristics, featuring olive groves, farmland, and long-established residential communities that have existed for decades.

Residents told our agency that they possess registered title deeds (Tapu) recorded in the land registry, stressing that the area includes their homes, agricultural lands, and the graves of their ancestors. They emphasized that they would not leave their land under any circumstances.

According to residents, the planned project involves transferring the land to a private company, arguing that this contradicts the original purpose for which the land was expropriated and threatens the rights of the original owners.

Official Position

For its part, Al-Saboura Municipality said the eviction procedures were based on directives issued by the Rural Damascus Governorate and the General Housing Establishment. The measures aim to enable the establishment to hand over the site to Abyat General Contracting Development Company, in implementation of the contract signed between the two parties.

The General Housing Establishment and Abyat Real Estate Development Company previously announced the launch of the "Modern Urban Community" project in Al-Bajaa. The project includes the construction of around 20,000 housing units with investments estimated at nearly $1 billion, as part of the government's strategy to expand housing projects and involve the private sector in their implementation.

So far, neither the Syrian government nor the General Housing Establishment has issued an official public statement directly addressing residents' objections or explaining the legal basis for the eviction notices. No official response has been made to the legal criticisms raised.

The Legal Dispute

Several legal experts agree that the core of the dispute is not the urban development project itself, but rather the legal basis on which the eviction measures are founded.

Legal expert Anas Mazen said that Syria's Expropriation Law permits the seizure of private property solely for public benefit, such as the construction of hospitals, schools, roads, and other public facilities. He noted that the Al-Bajaa area had originally been expropriated for the construction of a sports city and a hospital—not for a private investment project.

Mazen added that converting expropriated land into a project implemented by a private company raises legal concerns that warrant a review of the implementation procedures. He noted that Syrian legislation stipulates that expropriated property should be returned to its original owner if the public-benefit project is not carried out within the legally prescribed timeframe, making the continued expropriation of the land after many years a matter of legal debate.

He believes the case becomes even more complex as a number of landowners continue to assert their property rights, making the implementation of any investment project before ownership disputes are resolved vulnerable to legal challenges before the courts.

Mazen also pointed out that the presence of cemeteries within the area adds another legal and social dimension to the case, given the special protection afforded to burial sites under Syrian law and local customs.

He proposed resolving the dispute by involving the original landowners in the project through the allocation of development shares or fair compensation, rather than resorting to direct eviction measures.

Current Situation

So far, no large-scale evictions or actual construction work have been reported in the area. Residents continue to reject the eviction notices and insist on remaining on their land, affirming that they will pursue both legal action and public advocacy to defend their rights.

Meanwhile, the relevant authorities remain committed to moving forward with the project under the signed contracts, without announcing any changes to the project's course or the launch of public negotiations with residents.

Some sources indicate that the Al-Bajaa case has entered an open legal and administrative dispute, with the future of the project now dependent on the authorities' ability to resolve issues related to ownership and expropriation, and to reach a formula that balances urban development needs with the protection of the original landowners' rights—particularly amid ongoing debate over whether the eviction procedures comply with Syria's Expropriation Law and the principles protecting private property.

ANHA