Environmental Study of “Village” and its Effects to Judging about the Rural Land Use Change (Case Study: Ranching in Environment of a Village in Unification Judgment No 760 of Supreme Court)

Village is the main principal subdivision of territory. In Law of Territory it means that small society in villages contributes to create City and Cities to Big City and so for to Province and Capital and Country. This meaning is not vide from its philosophical dimension. What is the Reality of Village that necessitate to have such a deep role in our territorial subdivision?
It is rarely discussed in Law and rarely is a challenge in its dimension. The reality is that the works are done in Village is completely different from what is doing in a city and or in bigger cities. The question is that if Work and Land Use in village should be compatible by that reality of village? First approach in confronting to village and farms and gardens could be that approach which is currently accepted in Private and Property Law; The man who is the owner of a land or garden have the ownership on it so he can do anything he will on his land or his garden. There is not any restriction. This approach can create a kind of concurrence between village and city to being a city in future by predicable defeat of village in that unfair competition.
Another approach is that there should be some definition of land using in village administratively and controlling that using legally. Also this approach can kill the Reality of Village. In the other word, by changing the people’s views in every village, the village will simply be changed to other community.
So it is clear that our first question in this research is that what is the village? What is its reality? What is its importance to keep the village for ever to being always village and how can prevent the works that are inconsistent to the reality and philosophy of village.
We believe that the mentioned judgement of our supreme court could be seen as a first step for confronting by village in philosophical confrontation studies and can guide our future jurisprudence before lower tribunals and courts which are continuously battling every day by that unfair changing of the Use of Land as a Modern Pest of Farms and Gardens. We discussed here that the Land Use is predominately a matter of philosophy and we should change our views for the remedy of unfair changing. We cannot close our eyes to Economic and Social included Cultural aspects of changing the Land Use. It is not only a matter of Law of Property or the Law of Territory Division but also it is a matter of Economic and Social and Cultural notion. So a Lawyer and a Professor of Law cannot realize the reality of Land Use and Changing of that Land to other Beneficial Using unless he observes that roots and foundations before other scientists.
It seems that the remedy and the approach and the essence of discussion should be based on the reality of village and not on the subdivision in Law of Territory of Law of Property. It should be real and natural and not be an artificial conception. This reality is find its foundation in nature inherently; a thing that prevent any forced and inconsistent invention of human kind in village. The Law should defend this reality; it ought to open its eyes for seeing; prevent any offensive attack to the village and protect its philosophical notion.
The judgment No 760 will be the beginning but the Base Stone of every development in a country that has suffered greatly from the change in the use of agricultural land and gardens, and there will always be the growth of urbanization and then the creep of urbanization towards the village.
By this study as an example of judicial feedback on their ideas, Environmental Scientists can be see the results of their efforts and could be optimistic about the growth of philosophical reflections in the field of environment generally and in the notion of Village. In other similar cases, they can think about basic ideas so that jurists, lawyers, and judges can understand the reality of judicial phenomena from these environmental perspectives, and thus would take a more effective step toward protecting land use and the concept of village.
The Supreme Court has taken a step that is different from other Judgments. The Supreme Court has turned its attention to alignment and has taken the middle approach which is philosophical one.

The definition of Land Use aimed for long or short term program of its utilization. Alongside of this definition that needs some civil or penal rules to sanctioning, the philosophy and the nature of some Phenomenon can also defining a kind of Land Use which should be called Natural Land Using. Village is one of these Phenomenon. What can define the Land using in Village, is the natural coexistence with the nature of Village. This is the perspective to seeing the village which is known in Environmental Studies and City or Village Programing Sciences but is not current in legal Problem and Law. The focus of Law in this matter is merely on Sanctions. Notwithstanding that mentioned focus, we should observe the Judicial Discourse clearly so when our Supreme Court rending Unification Judgment No 760, that sais establishing a Ranching in Village according the Regulations and Standards, in author’s opinion is not change of Land Use, that judgment should not be regarded as a judicial approach. It is a philosophical perspective which is principally and methodologically an instructive and guiding judgment.
The reality of village is not the only thing that the legislature has considered it as a main or basis measure for the division of the country. It is not artificial. It's natural and real. This fact is based on coexistence with nature, which prevents it from invading and destruction or denaturation. The law must defend this fact; He must open his eyes to see it; Avoid attacking it and uphold it.
The fact is that in our country less attention is paid to the philosophy of the village. The village has become a case of return to nature by those who do not want the nature to coexisting phenomena; In order to have it, they want to make up and recuperation for the shortcomings and disadvantages of living in the city, and because they come to the village, they change the culture and civilization there, creating a kind of competition for the villagers in the face of the coverage, dialect, behavior and character of the townspeople and the result is definite changing of rural lands to others. The tragedy of village's death and the acquisition and ownership of these lands and the change of its identity is the result of non-respecting to that philosophical basic.
There are many villages that have become uninhabited and there are many agricultural lands and gardens that have been changed with the change of use. These changes are not in favor of the truth of the village, nor are they in favor of the truth of the city.
In the unanimous Judgment No. 760, the Supreme Court apparently decided to resolve the dispute between the courts and considered the accurate judgment and tried to unify the procedure and the decisions of Lower courts, but, in the opinion of the author, due to the legal approvals and legislative records, he considered that “establishment of Ranching in village by respecting the regulations and standards is not change of land use of farms and gardens”. This philosophical attitude of the Supreme Court is very valuable and can be a guide for solving other judicial challenges in the field of Environmental Law.