Is your land really subject to the fee? Rights that many white land owners may not be aware of. White land fees were not approved as a punishment for ownership, nor as a derogation of the inherent right to private property, but rather as a regulatory tool aimed at addressing urban and economic imbalances, stimulating the development of land within urban areas, serving the balanced planning of cities and limiting the disruption of land utilization.

White land fees were not approved as a punishment for ownership, nor as a derogation of the inherent right to private property. <However, the legitimacy of the goal, no matter how relevant it may be, does not necessarily mean that the application is correct in all cases. In essence, regulation is a means to achieve the public interest, not an end to be exercised in isolation from the statutory guarantees for individuals. Hence the rights of white landowners as stand-alone rights, which are not extinguished simply because the land is subjected to the fee.

White landowners' rights are not extinguished. <Private property is inherently inviolable and may not be restricted or financially burdened except in accordance with specific controls and to the extent that it strikes a balance between the public interest and the owner's rights. The subjection of land to the fee does not turn the owner into a mere taxpayer, but keeps him a full legal status, with the right to examine, object and accountability whenever there is a reason to do so.

Private property is inviolable in its origin.

Right to verify the legitimacy of being subject to the fee

<One of the most important rights of the owner of white land is to verify the validity of the legal basis on which his land is subject to the fee. Not every undeveloped land is necessarily subject to the fee, as subjection is linked to the availability of conditions and controls related to location within the urban area, developability, and the absence of regulatory, planning, or statutory impediments.

Right to verify the legitimacy of subjecting the land to the fee. Any mischaracterization of the land, generalization in subjecting it to the fee without examining its actual reality, or ignoring a fundamental obstacle that prevents its development, violates the owner's right not to be unduly burdened financially, and constitutes a legitimate basis for legal objection.

Right of access and transparency in valuation

<The owner has an inherent right to know the bases and criteria on which the fee was calculated, whether in terms of the approved area, the assumed development stage, or the data on which the assessment was based. Transparency here is not a formality, but a fundamental guarantee that enables the owner to understand his legal position and assess the legitimacy of the decision made against him.

The more ambiguous the assessment is, or the more it lacks a clear statement of its influencing factors, the stronger the owner's right to question the decision and take the statutory route to review or challenge it.

Right to object and formal process

Objecting to white land fees is a statutory right, not an exception or an administrative grant. This includes objecting to the origin of subjection, the amount of the fee, or any element of the assessment that affects its outcome.

Objecting to white land fees is a statutory right, not an exception or an administrative grant. <However, this right is not exercised in a constructive or emotional manner, but requires a precise statutory reasoning and a disciplined link between the actual reality of the land and the regulations governing the application of the fee. An objection is, in fact, a self-contained legal process based on analysis and customization, not just a fleeting administrative request.

The right not to hold the owner responsible for what he has no control over

If the land is undevelopable for reasons beyond the owner's control, such as the impossibility of connecting services or existing regulatory or planning restrictions, charging a fee based on the assumption of infeasible development would violate the principle of systemic justice and exceed the intent of the regulation.

It is a well-established principle that an obligation is not based on the impossible. Regulation does not work if it is based on theoretical assumptions that ignore reality, nor does it achieve its purpose if it becomes a burden imposed without distinction between those who have the actual ability to develop and those who are forcibly deprived of it.

Regulation does not achieve its purpose if it turns into a burden imposed without distinction between those who have the actual ability to develop and those who are forcibly deprived of it.

The right to proportionality and justice in application

Fees, while legitimate in principle, must be applied according to the criterion of proportionality, so that they remain a tool of incentive rather than a means of exhaustion, a rational regulation rather than a means of collection, and the owner has the right to be treated equally with others, without selectivity or unjustified disparity in application or assessment.

Unjustified disparity, or strictness in some cases but not others, undermines confidence in the regulation, empties it of its reformist intent, and transforms the fee from a remedial means to a contentious burden.

Conclusion

Talking about the rights of white landowners is not intended to oppose the regulation or disrupt its objectives, but rather to emphasize that the success of any public policy depends on the fairness of its application and its respect for the statutory guarantees guaranteed to individuals.

An informed owner is not an opponent of the regulation, but a partner in it, once he feels that his right is protected and that his obligation is based on a proper basis. Hence, awareness of these rights, and exercising them through the proper legal path, not only protects the owner, but also contributes to correct implementation and achieves the desired balance between public interest and protection of private property.

In practice, it is observed that quite a few fee decisions are subject to review and correction when presented in a systematic and professional manner, making early legal examination and institutional objection a crucial step that should not be overlooked.

@Dr_alkharji