Demolition without a Final Ruling, Infringement or Explicit Law

‘The Conservation of the Use of Agricultural Lands and Gardens Act’ was passed due to the importance that land plays in sustaining food security and in order to determine a required procedure for altering how a particular piece of land is employed. Due to problems with the implementation of this law, it was amended in 1385 thus enforcing both a demolition and a fine upon unauthorized alteration of land use. Article 10, paragraph 2, refers to the "independent" demolition of a building as one of the duties of the Agricultural Jihad Officials, and has led to various interpretations and judicial opinions. As a result some judiciaries enforced the demolition of buildings without issuing a clear ruling. This paper aims to identify the nature of this law and explain the effects of the nature of this law on those enforcing it. The descriptive-analytical method is employed to prove this paper’s hypothesis: the enforcement of demolition of buildings based on the law passed in 1385 is criminal in nature. This paper establishes that the aforementioned article, has expressed a particular ruling on how to enforce a criminal law. This is because according to Article 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the issuance of the executive order is up to the prosecutor, while the execution of the demolition is up to the Agricultural Jihad Officials. Therefore, the demolition of a building following the unauthorized alteration of land use is possible only after judicial proceedings and the issuance of a final ruling whereas, demolition without a final ruling is void of legal justification and is in itself punishable by criminal law.