Ownership Dispute in Amuda’s Al-Hal Market in Hassakeh

In late July, the municipality of Amuda, controlled by the Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria (AANES) in Hassakeh governorate, began evacuating shops in the Al-Hal Market, located in the city centre, returning the premises to their original owners in implementation of a 1997 court ruling. The decision prompted current shop occupants to demand compensation before eviction.

The Al-Hal Market, which is meant for the sale of vegetables, fruits, dairy products and meat, was built on part of a 33-dunam plot of land owned by Syriac Christian families who had endowed it to the church in the 1960s. The land was supposed to be managed by the church council or diocese, but it remained registered under the names of its original owners and was never recorded as endowment (waqf) property in the cadastral records. 

In the late 1980s, the Amuda municipality appropriated the land, taking advantage of the lack of construction there. Between 1989 and 1990, the municipality allocated the land via “donation” (hiba) deeds to a group of merchants to establish a temporary wholesale market. Legally, a hiba must be given without compensation, yet the municipality imposed a fee of SYP 1,000 per square metre – a clear legal violation. At that time, the municipality and the merchants agreed that only temporary shops would be built, made of wood and straw, until an alternative site could be provided in another cadastral area. Over time, however, these temporary stalls became permanent structures, numbering 47 shops, which were eventually bought and sold through unofficial binding contracts. Their value rose to between USD 15,000 and USD 40,000 per shop.

In 1997, legal representatives of the Syriac landowners obtained a civil court ruling in Amuda confirming their ownership. Since then, the owners have repeatedly tried to reclaim possession of their land, but the shop occupants refused to vacate or relinquish it. In 2014 the Autonomous Administration (AANES)-run “People’s Municipality” replaced the former state-run municipality. Since then, the owners renewed their demand for the enforcement of the court ruling and the restoration of their property.

The People’s Municipality in Amuda is now preparing to establish a new Al-Hal Market on a 13-dunam plot near the industrial zone, comprising 48 shops priced at USD 15,000 each, Mohammed Khair Shawkat, head of the city’s Al-Hal Market Union told local Arta Radio. Mohammed Al-Omari, the co-chair of the Amuda Municipality, told the same station that the municipality would propose to the project contractor an instalment-payment system to ease the financial burden on vendors, noting that creating and organising a public market falls within the municipality’s responsibilities.

The affected shop owners, however, consider this measure a circumvention of the law, which obliges the municipality – as the party responsible for the damage – to compensate them for their material losses. The current tenants of the Al-Hal Market refuse to comply with the eviction order without fair compensation. 

One trader, Abu Kawa, stated that he bought a 21-square-metre shop in 1989. He is demanding compensation with a new shop of equivalent size in the new project, expressing readiness to pay the price difference if the new premises are larger. Others insist on receiving cash compensation from the municipality based on current real estate prices, arguing that the new decision is an attempt to force them to purchase shops in the new market – whose land ownership remains unclear – and that the eviction is driven purely by commercial motives. One vendor added that it is ironic they are being asked to buy new shops in a less central location after being expelled from premises they purchased decades ago.

Meanwhile, the Syriac owners and the church hold the Amuda municipality responsible for compensating the shop occupants, since it had previously acted unlawfully by attempting to appropriate and sell the land. In 1998 and 1999, the church proposed collecting endowment rents for the shops built on the endowed land instead of evicting them, but the shopkeepers rejected the offer, continuing instead to pay only electricity and municipal fees. The Committee for the Protection of Christian Property monitors violations of the assets of absentee owners, either at their request or on its own initiative when aware of infringements. The committee has demanded the return of the land to its rightful owners and supports the church’s call for evacuation.

The conduct of the former municipality constitutes unjust enrichment, which under Article 180 of the Syrian Civil Code obliges anyone who gains benefit without a legitimate cause at another’s expense to compensate for the loss inflicted. Without a clear compensation mechanism, it is likely that the affected parties will resort to filing individual lawsuits in court, after the grievance petitions submitted to the municipality’s legal office failed to elicit any response.