Fantastic news from COVID hospitals: Today more cured than affected by coronavirus, here are the 3 cities with the highest number of infections
Law no. 7501 "For the land" and Dritëro Agolli
Written by Ramazan Sherja 23 Shkurt 2021
The commemoration of the fourth anniversary of the death of the great poet Dritëro Agolli a few days ago and the action launched by the ANA offices to update and certify the lands of former agricultural cooperatives, became the impetus to write this article. When a lot was written about the literary giant, or the Dritëro mountain range, as Namik Dokle called it, I was reminded of the attitude of MP Agolli in the first pluralist Parliament towards one of the most important laws in the beginnings of democracy, such as Law no. 7501 " For the land ”dated 19.7.1991. This is one of the laws which, not only was never properly implemented during these 30 years, but has brought irreparable damage and confusion that continues today. Dritëro Agolli then the only MP who voted in Parliament against the law "On land", in the face of that cunning and indecipherable alliance of the two great political forces, the SP and the DP. Anticipating the consequences that this law would bring, the visionary Dritëroi voted against, saying that the land should be returned to the owner, the peasant. Later, when Agolli came to Elbasan as a delegate of the center, he told us: “You mayors should be careful with the land, with the greater wealth that the village has, because the newly approved law, I believe, has begun to make socks. "Law 7501 will open many wounds that will not be closed easily." And indeed, this law, approved by the socialist alliance, felt savage on the shoulders of every peasant and local ruler, just as it covered that day Dritëroi's wisdom in Parliament the fury of empty discussions of deputies from both sides of politics. How right Dritëroi had was proved by the practice of almost 30 years, where many rightful owners got into trouble, were beaten, separated from one another, and quite a few others shed blood for the land. These days the head of ANA, Mr. Artan Lame, stated that the certification of agricultural land in the village will be closed soon, just as the legalization of housing throughout the country is nearing completion. Many family members in the village own the land with the act of taking it into use, AMTP, but most do not use it, because it is not left by the former owner and is not legally certified in the Mortgage. The consequences over the years have been extremely severe. First by law, indeed the land divided according to the spirits was given to a peasant not the old owner, but in reality it was used by the former owner. When summoned before the authorities, the former owner was removed as if he had no claims to the land they had taken from him, but in the background he threatened the new owner, even taking his own life. This brought the other concern, where the peasant legally charged with the other's land, paid her all the obligations, while in reality the former owner used it. This created great concern in the real distribution of economic aid. The law had clearly defined that whoever had land above the planned norm did not receive economic assistance. Thus families who were fictitiously burdened with land received neither economic aid nor other rewards provided by the laws of the time. It often happened that the former owner also used the land and benefited from the assistance. The second problem, quite conflicting that further aggravated the situation in the village, was a decision of the government of the time for this problem. According to this government decision, the owner who had acquired land by Law 7501, if he did not want the other's land, could release it by voluntarily accepting the written submission. This opened up other quarrels. A part of the villagers handed over the lands out of fear, but the procedures were not fully carried out in the cadastral offices and the land was fictitiously in charge of the owner charged with land by law 7501. Negative was the fact that a part of the old owners , cunningly refused to retake unproductive lands, which the new users issued to them by declaration. "The law has given her, keep her healthy", objected those new owners and so those who were in charge of this land by law, but who did not give any produce, were forced to pay her tax while they did not take any type of production. The concern was that the peasants in charge of the other's land paid the tax not only on the unproductive lands which the old owner had left "at the door", but also on the impossibility of enforcing the law, a large part of those who were the land was legally encumbered, they fictitiously paid the tax on the part of the productive land that had been assigned to them by law, which was actually used by the old owner. Third, the non-certification of peasant property has brought many serious concerns and obstacles to new construction in the village. No construction is allowed to be done, on land without a certificate of ownership, according to the laws that came out later. In the district of Elbasan we encountered such a fact, which may be a concern for other districts of the country. Some residents who have suffered damage from natural disasters such as landslides or earthquakes, This is also confirmed by the relevant legal documentation of the civil emergency offices, does not allow them to build, if they do not present the certificate of land ownership. Although the Municipal Council has taken the relevant decision to financially assist the affected families, this decision has remained unenforced, as the town planning offices do not provide them with building permits, as they do not have ownership certificates. Is not this an absurdity that penalizes the villager injured by disasters for a problem that is the duty of the state to do? On the one hand, the municipality makes a decision to help the victims of natural disasters financially, and on the other hand, it is a subordinate office of the municipality, which issues legal claims and makes this decision unenforceable. The law on land even where it seems to have created a square of rural quarrels, by bargaining the former owners themselves with the new owners, has again created a false image, that contradictions and quarrels still continue. It is paradoxical that for thirty years the certification of property in the village has not been done, while the state has taken the tax on land lek per lek, despite the possession of the ownership document. Therefore we say that the work started in implementation of Law no. 20/2020, on the registration and certification of the lands of former agricultural cooperatives, is another success of the socialist government, as is the successful work done so far with legalizations. And of course, in the realization of these two important actions, which solve once and for all the concern of the inhabitants of the city and the village, is also the contribution and correctness of the leader of ASHK, Mr. Artan Lame. We say this because there is no more difficult sector, to be governed and administered, by law and justice, than that which pertains to property. As the Italian poet Tiziano Meneghello put it, "Ownership, before it is a luxury, is a cost."