The uncertain fate of Mount Lebanon’s common lands

The uncertain fate of Mount Lebanon’s common lands

Description: From property rights to village identity, MP Elias Hankach tells The Beiruter why Mount Lebanon’s common lands dispute matters following the State Council’s decision.

Keywords: Mount Lebanon, Common Lands, State Council, Property Rights, Ministry of Finance

A long-running dispute over the ownership and management of common lands in Mount Lebanon has returned to the forefront of Lebanon’s legal and political debate after the State Council suspended the implementation of a controversial circular issued by the Ministry of Finance.

The decision, issued following an appeal submitted by Lebanese Member of Parliament (MP) Elias Hankach and the municipality of Roumieh in the Metn district, halted Circular No. 609/2026, issued by Finance Minister Yassine Jaber on 25 February 2026.

Speaking to The Beiruter, MP Elias Hankach described the dispute as a battle to preserve the historical ownership of local communities over lands that, according to him, have been tied to villages and their residents for generations.

The State Council decision: Awaiting a final resolution

Hankach clarified that his appeal was not filed in his capacity as a parliamentarian but as a resident of Roumieh and a directly affected party. “I submitted the appeal not in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, but as a resident of the village and an aggrieved party,” he said.

The legal challenge was filed jointly with the municipality of Roumieh and the village’s mukhtars. Hankach said the appeal relied on extensive legal arguments prepared with the assistance of the Kataeb Party’s Legislative Department and was revised several times before submission.

The State Council later suspended the implementation of the circular, a decision Hankach described as significant because it was issued unanimously. “We are now awaiting its final annulment,” he said, highlighting that the objective of the appeal was to ensure that ownership remains with village communities rather than being transferred to the state.

The State Council’s decision, however, does not constitute a final ruling on the legality of the circular. It only suspends its implementation until the court issues a final decision on the substance of the appeal.

The circular threatens the historical ownership of villages

Hankach stressed that the current dispute is not a new one, pointing out that the Ministry of Finance had attempted a similar approach in the past. “First, this decision is a circular issued by the Minister of Finance for the second time,” Hankach said. “The first time was under Ali Hassan Khalil in 2014-2015, but it was later withdrawn. Now it has been issued again.”

According to the MP, the circular would effectively transfer ownership of common lands from village communities to the state, despite the historical understanding that these lands belong collectively to local residents.

These common lands belong to the people of each village.

He said that this tradition of collective ownership extends across, from northern areas such as Jubbat Bsharri and Tannourine to Aqoura, the Metn region, and Jezzine.

For Hankach, the concern is not limited to the immediate legal consequences of the circular but also to what could happen in the future if ownership is transferred to the state. “Today, there may be confidence in the current minister, but tomorrow these lands could be turned into factories or housing developments that bear no resemblance to the identity and character of the village,” he warned.

He argued that maintaining local ownership gives communities the ability to decide how their lands should be used and protects the social and environmental character of villages.

Concerns over identity, development, and local control

Beyond the legal arguments, Hankach framed the dispute as part of a wider debate over the preservation of Mount Lebanon’s social and cultural identity.

Any encroachment on these lands would inevitably alter the social fabric and collective identity of the region.

According to him, common lands are often green spaces or undeveloped mountainous areas that do not necessarily require large-scale investment projects. He questioned the rationale behind transferring them to state ownership while the state itself owns significant properties that remain unused. “The state already possesses vast tracts of land and valuable properties that it neither utilizes nor invests in,” he said, pointing to the government’s continued reliance on renting buildings for public institutions.

Hankach also raised concerns about potential corruption, favoritism, and unplanned development if ownership moved away from local communities. “Once ownership is taken away from the villagers and transferred to the Lebanese state, those projects can harm the natural environment, undermine the social fabric, and at times create isolated enclaves within areas whose communities have long lived in harmony,” he argued.

For him, the issue is ultimately connected to preserving a historical way of life. “This is about our identity; an identity that stretches back 1,369 years,” he said, referring to the historical roots of Mount Lebanon’s communities and their traditions.

Property rights and the legal debate

Hankach stressed that the core of the dispute is the protection of property rights, which are guaranteed under the Lebanese Constitution.

Property is sacred, and the Constitution explicitly protects it.

According to him, one of the main legal arguments behind the appeal was that the circular violated both constitutional protections and the Real Estate Property Law by potentially transferring ownership without a legislative basis. “You cannot simply take property away from its owners and register it in someone else’s name, regardless of the justification,” he said.

Hankach argued that there is no genuine ownership dispute between municipalities and the Ministry of Finance, insisting that common lands in Mount Lebanon belong to village residents.

He also highlighted that municipalities and Common Lands Committees already have mechanisms in place to manage these properties. “Because there is always oversight and public scrutiny, it is difficult for any individual to act unilaterally or misuse these lands,” he explained.

Historical and legal background of the common lands issue

The controversy surrounding Mount Lebanon’s common lands is rooted in Lebanon’s historical real estate system, which developed during the early decades of the 20th century.

Between 1922 and 1930, Lebanon established a modern land registration framework that attempted to account for regional specificities and local traditions. A key milestone was Decision No. 3339 issued on 12 November 1930, which distinguished between common lands in Mount Lebanon and attached abandoned properties in other regions.

Under this distinction, common lands in Mount Lebanon were traditionally considered collective properties linked to villages and governed by local customs, while abandoned attached properties elsewhere were considered state property with communities retaining certain usage rights.

The distinction was later reinforced through the amendment of Article 7 of the Real Estate Property Law under Law No. 47/1971, which recognized that abandoned attached properties located within municipal boundaries could constitute private municipal property.

However, delays in land surveying and registration created legal uncertainty over the years, allowing competing interpretations regarding ownership and administration.

In 2015, a similar attempt by then Minister of Finance Ali Hassan Khalil to register common lands under state ownership sparked opposition and was eventually halted. The issue resurfaced in 2026 with Minister Yassine Jaber’s Circular No. 609/2026.

Ultimately, the State Council’s decision to suspend implementation has temporarily paused the controversy, but the final legal ruling will determine the future status of thousands of properties across Mount Lebanon.