هذا التقرير متاح أيضًا بـ العربية
“My grandfather died of heartbreak over the land that was taken from us under the expropriation decision.” That is how the heirs of Jamil Hussein Dahman described to NoonPost the burden of the expropriation order in the Dummar neighborhood west of Damascus, making them among tens of thousands of Syrians stripped of their land under a law they describe as “unjust.”
The Dahman case was not an isolated one, but rather one of the expropriation files accumulated over decades of Assad regime rule under the banner of public benefit, leaving behind disputes over ownership and compensation that their claimants are still fighting to this day.
With the regime’s fall, these disputes did not end. Earlier legislation and decisions continue to shape the fate of expropriated land, while investment projects being carried out on some of it have sparked protests by its owners, who are demanding the return of their property or fair compensation.
So how did the legacy of expropriation in Syria take shape? Why do its effects remain present in the transitional period? And what legal pathways could restore rights to their owners without creating new injustices?
A history of legalizing seizure
Just 3 years after Hafez Assad took power, he issued Expropriation Law No. 20 of 1974, which allowed the authorities to seize vast tracts of land on the pretext of establishing housing and service facilities.
Under this law, the land belonging to the Dahman heirs in Damascus’ Dummar neighborhood was taken. They said that “Rifaat Assad’s forces used their land as a buffer zone for its military site, after which the 105th Brigade of the Republican Guard was stationed there, and Rifaat and Hafez Assad kept the land and properties surrounding the site as a military zone that was off-limits.”
In 2022, the heirs learned that ownership of their land had been transferred to the Damascus governorate in 2011 and that the compensation had been deposited in the Central Bank, noting that their right to withdraw the compensation had lapsed under the statute of limitations.
The next piece of expropriation legislation was Law No. 60 of 1979, issued under the heading of “urban expansion,” which granted municipalities and administrative units broad powers to expropriate and allocate land surrounding cities.
Law No. 20 of 1983 followed, expanding powers to expropriate private property, particularly for the Ministry of Defence. It remains the legal framework governing expropriation today.
Under this law, 11 hectares of land belonging to Ahmed Kaaka’s grandfather in the al-Zahraa Association and al-Muallimeen neighbourhoods of Aleppo province were expropriated, Kaaka told Noon Post. Some of the land was used to build housing for senior officials and people close to the Baathist authorities, he said. His family received meagre compensation of no more than 300,000 Syrian pounds. He also said their right to claim compensation had subsequently lapsed under the statute of limitations.
The same approach continued after Bashar Assad came to power in 2000, beginning with the amendment of Decree No. 60 of 1979 and its replacement by Decree No. 26. The latter gave municipalities greater flexibility to contract with companies and associations. This led to property disputes that harmed the original owners, while compensation for expropriation remained low and some entities and associations exploited these arrangements.
After the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, expropriation and urban planning legislation became tools to punish and pressure opponents and areas in revolt. In 2012, the regime issued Decree No. 66, providing for two planning zones in Damascus’s Mezzeh and Kafr Sousa neighbourhoods on the pretext of regulating informal settlements. These measures, however, were linked to the displacement of residents and the loss of their property. Those affected are still seeking redress.
That same year, Decree No. 63 allowed the authorities to freeze the assets of anyone who took part in the revolution pending investigation on suspicion of terrorism — the charge the regime levelled against all its opponents.
The scope of punishment widened in 2018 with Decree No. 10, which authorised the creation of zoning areas across Syria, primarily to strip displaced people of their homes and land. Rights advocates have described these laws as incompatible with even the most basic human rights standards and in clear violation of the constitution.
Expropriated land used for investment
The Assad regime’s laws survived its collapse. They continue to govern property and urban development in Syria, compounding an already complex set of disputes.
Ahmed Kaaka, who regularly joins protests against expropriation, said: “Although the expropriation law requires a public benefit, one of our expropriated plots is being used for the Saraya Mall project, which is a commercial investment and cannot be considered of public benefit.”
Such projects extend beyond Aleppo. Damascus Governorate has resumed work on “Basiliya City” and “Marota City” in Mezzeh and Kafr Sousa under Decree No. 66, even though the decree was intended to displace their residents. Landowners have responded with widespread anger and opposition, organising protests to demand its repeal and forming an association calling for it to be struck down.
The Syrian government’s plans to turn Mezzeh Military Airport into a civilian airport have also angered landowners in Moadamiyat al-Sham. They oppose any investment projects on expropriated land that do not serve the public good. The site also contains mass graves, and the plans threaten to erase evidence needed to identify victims.
Protests have continued periodically in Qudsaya, Dummar and al-Bujaa against the “Abyat Hills” and “Sham View” investment projects on expropriated land for which no fair compensation has been provided. Protesters are demanding the repeal of the expropriation law and a review of their claims to the rights taken from them.
In Homs, residents of al-Qarabis have taken to the streets to demand the return of land expropriated under Law No. 60 after the municipality decided to build the “Victory Boulevard” project on it. They oppose any investment projects on the land without fair compensation.
No investment or other project has yet been carried out on the land belonging to Jamil Dahman’s heirs. They are demanding its return after ownership was transferred to the Ministry of Defence, which refuses to relinquish it. The heirs say they support reconstruction and development but reject the application of Assad’s laws, which they described as constituting collective punishment and demographic change in the area.
These cases share several features. The owners hold documents and records proving their ownership of the expropriated land and remain determined to secure justice and redress. Their property was forcibly seized under the former regime, which denied them the opportunity to seek its return. Anyone who dared object or demand their rights faced the constant threat of arrest or enforced disappearance.
How is the new government handling the claims?
The Syrian government has responded to landowners’ demands by saying it will review their rights and the compensation owed to them. It has also stressed that the investment projects planned for those lands serve the public interest and contribute to reconstruction. These statements have not reassured landowners or dispelled their fears about the fate of their property and rights.
The Kaaka heirs ended their open-ended sit-in demanding the return of their land in Jamiyat al-Zahraa after Aleppo Governorate formed a committee to examine their demands. According to a statement signed by the heirs, the committee agreed to allow them a specified period to obtain a court order halting construction on land proven to belong to them.
Ahmed Kaaka, one of the heirs, said: “The committee promised us fair compensation, but it has not provided any compensation and told us to go to court.” The heirs filed a case before the administrative court, which rejected it, he said. They filed another case five months ago, but it has made no progress.
The Kaaka family continues to pursue its rights, relying on documents proving its ownership of the land. The heirs have applied to the governorate for another permit to hold a sit-in, but it has delayed granting one. They also asked President Ahmed al-Sharaa to reconsider the expropriation compensation and award them fair compensation based on the land’s current market price. They have received no response.
Such complications extend beyond the Kaaka family’s case. Efforts to address expropriation disputes continue to face obstacles within the relevant government bodies, despite the formation of committees and initiatives to review affected cases.
In February 2025, Rural Damascus Governorate formed a committee headed by Governor Amer al-Sheikh to examine all aspects of expropriation. Its tasks include collecting files and land registry records for every case and identifying the entity occupying each property. This work would inform a study and proposal to be submitted to the government and the People’s Assembly, with a view to drafting new laws to restore owners’ rights. The committee has yet to produce tangible results.
The governorate also said the General Housing Establishment intended to reopen applications for compensation from citizens who had not received compensation in kind for their expropriated land.
The Ministry of Public Works and Housing announced that it had established an office to receive complaints and objections in coordination with Rural Damascus Governorate. It stressed that accepting or examining a request did not constitute advance recognition of its validity or prejudge its outcome.
The ministry nevertheless maintained that expropriation decisions remained the legal basis for its work. In a statement, it said expropriation was a legal tool for serving the public interest and that investment projects did not conflict with the public good.
It also said that delays in implementing some projects, caused by the former regime’s corruption and the years of revolution and war, did not in themselves invalidate expropriation or automatically restore ownership, provided the public interest continued to be served.
Expropriation has also risen to the top of the People’s Assembly’s agenda. Assembly member Hisham al-Afiyouni said a review of expropriation laws and related cases had begun as part of work on legislative proposals to address the issue. Members had called on the relevant authorities, particularly the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, to halt work relating to expropriation cases until safeguards were in place to ensure proper governance and justice, he said.
Parliamentary sources said the draft law was likely to be ready by the first quarter of next year, citing the involvement of multiple bodies and obstacles and problems on the ground.
They said it would cover expropriation, property zoning and agricultural land included in urban expansion. The draft would be referred to a committee formed to follow up on the laws, working with the relevant ministries and institutions. It would then go to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for review before being presented to assembly members.
New legislation and a national mechanism
Speaking to Noon Post, lawyer and legal and international relations researcher al-Mu’tasim Billah al-Kilani described the government’s response as “preliminary and not a fundamental solution through which rights are restored to their owners.” He said the protests over Abyat Hills and “Sham View” showed that a number of owners remained in dispute over compensation and rights ahead of the two projects’ implementation.
Al-Kilani believes the real test of the government’s response is whether it publishes a comprehensive mechanism setting out how many complaints and requests have been resolved, how much compensation has been paid, the criteria for returning land or regularising its status, and a timetable for clearing the backlog. At the time of publication, the government had announced no such mechanism.
The problems and disputes arising from expropriation decisions require a comprehensive national legal remedy, with participatory measures that take all parties’ rights into account. Can decisions that failed to achieve a “public benefit” be reconsidered? And can ownership be restored to the original owners?
Al-Kilani stresses that years of inaction on a project, or a change in land use, do not automatically restore ownership. Article 35 of the 1983 law stipulates that land allocated for public benefit that subsequently loses that designation becomes part of the state’s private property. It also gives the former owner priority to repurchase it in one specific case involving agricultural land that remains suitable for investment. Al-Kilani considers this article a principal reason to amend the law.
He distinguishes between converting land to another public use and directing it towards private investment where no public benefit has been established. Where a private investor is involved in a housing project, he says, the contract, zoning plan, public entity’s share and actual use must be examined before the project’s legal status can be determined.
Al-Kilani believes Articles 16 and 17 of the 2025 declaration provide an important basis for taking these issues to court. Whether they apply to old decisions and final rulings requires judicial or legislative resolution. For that reason, he says, “it is not right to promise all owners immediate restitution.”
Al-Kilani says owners whose land has been built on without fair compensation can seek the unpaid amount and the interest prescribed by law, where the relevant conditions are met. They can also challenge notification, ownership and registration procedures, as well as subsequent transactions involving the property. They may ask the competent court to halt any new measure if the conditions for doing so are met.
Current law does not, however, allow land expropriated decades ago to be revalued at today’s price, he stresses. This makes a legislative settlement necessary where historical compensation has become severely unfair.
Al-Kilani believes the best legal response is new legislation with transitional provisions for old expropriations. The problem encompasses the definition of public benefit, the right to appeal, valuation methods, long delays in compensation payments and the fate of land when the purpose of its expropriation changes. The most harmful provisions could be amended pending comprehensive legislation, he says.
He recommends that the new law require owners to be notified, alternatives to expropriation to be examined, and an independent valuation and fair compensation to be provided. Both the valuation and compensation should be subject to judicial review. He also calls for a clear mechanism to return land or regularise its status when the purpose of expropriation no longer exists. Final judgments and other parties’ vested rights must be explicitly addressed to avoid creating new injustices while remedying old ones.
Judge Hussein Hamada, director of the Syrian Center for Legal Studies, proposes addressing the issue through two frameworks. The first is legislative: repealing all expropriation laws that violate the principles of justice and introducing legislation grounded in the constitutional rule: “Private property may not be expropriated except for the public benefit and in return for fair compensation.”
The second framework is administrative: forming a senior judicial committee comprising one member each from the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Bar Association. It would review all judicial rulings relating to Decree 60, including final rulings.
Hamada also called for provincial dispute-resolution committees, each chaired by a judge and including a representative of the administrative authority and a representative of landowners. They would restore ownership wherever possible, provide fair compensation where it was not, and address the position of new owners.
Addressing expropriation requires legislative amendments, reviews of judicial rulings and institutional mechanisms capable of providing redress on a broad scale. Al-Kilani believes a general system compensating everyone affected at current values, or reversing the effects of old expropriation laws, exceeds the scope of judicial interpretation and requires legislative intervention.
He stresses the need for a specialised national mechanism to publish expropriation decisions, maps and compensation deposit records, and receive claims from owners, heirs and displaced people. It would then propose the return of land, compensation or a settlement according to published criteria, with its decisions subject to review by an independent judiciary.