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.
However, the legitimacy of the objective, no matter how valid 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 that are not extinguished simply because the land is subjected to the fee.
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 as a full legal status holder, with the right to examine, object, and hold him accountable whenever there is a reason to do so.
The right to verify the legitimacy of 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 depends on the availability of conditions and controls related to the location within the urban area, the possibility of development, and the absence of regulatory, planning, or statutory impediments.
Any mischaracterization of the land, generalization in subjecting it to the fee without examining its actual reality, or ignoring a fundamental obstacle that prevents it from being developed, is a violation of the owner's right not to be unduly burdened financially and constitutes a legitimate basis for legal objection.
Accessibility and transparency in evaluation
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 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 use the legal process to review or challenge it.
The right to object and take the legal route
Objecting to white land fees is a statutory right, not an exception or an administrative grant, including objecting to the origin of the fee, the amount of the fee, or any element of the assessment that affects its outcome.
However, this right is not exercised in a constructive or emotional manner. It requires a precise statutory reasoning and a disciplined link between the actual reality of the land and the rules governing the application of the fee. An objection is a legal process of its own, based on analysis and customization, not just a passing administrative request.
The right not to hold the owner liable for what he has no control over
If the land is undevelopable for reasons beyond the owner's control, such as the inability to connect services or existing regulatory or planning restrictions, charging fees based on the assumption of infeasible development would violate the principle of systemic justice and exceed the intent of the regulation.
Regulation is not sustainable if it is based on theoretical assumptions that ignore reality, nor does it achieve its purpose if it becomes a burden imposed without distinguishing between those who have the actual ability to develop and those who have been forcibly deprived of it.
The right to proportionality and fairness in application
Although fees are legitimate in principle, they must be applied according to the criterion of proportionality, so that they remain an incentive tool rather than a means of exhaustion, and a rational organization 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 trust in the organization, empties it of its reformist intent, and transforms the fee from a therapeutic tool to a contentious burden.
Conclusion
Talking about the rights of white land owners is not intended to oppose the regulation or disrupt its goals, 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 regulation, but rather a partner in it, once he feels that his right is protected and that his commitment is based on a correct 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 the public interest and the protection of private property.
In practice, quite a few fee decisions are subject to review and correction when presented in a systematic and professional manner, making early legal scrutiny and institutional challenge a critical step that should not be overlooked.
@Dr_alkharji
