The forcible acquisition of land, which is related to citizenship rights in today's modern society, has a long history within the framework of mandatory laws of the Iranian legal system. In Iran after the revolution, this issue was placed under the banner of the "Land Acquisition and Possession" bill, and the relevant regulations and bylaws were accepted by administrative and executive institutions. In any legal system in today's society, the state is bound to use public power. However, the exercise of this power must be accompanied by logical reasons and legal justifications, or in other words, "legitimization". The nature and essence of this power can manifest itself in different forms. In contemporary public law, the exercise of state sovereignty cannot be analyzed based on a single theory alone. The structure of public power can be explained and accepted along with providing services to citizens and based on the theory of public interest. The method of this research is descriptive-analytical and based on library studies, and its main goal is a comparative study of two Iranian legal systems in the field of forced land acquisitions. The results of the research show that, unlike other European legal systems that seek the source of public power in the fundamental rights of the nation and democratically approved laws, power in the laws of other countries, in addition to having popular roots, also has strong royal foundations.

The " Booking Principle " as the link between "registration" and "validity” or opposability of land transactions" is one of the fundamental principles of the land registration systems that have been subject to exceptions, such as transfers based on inheritance, in the most registration systems, including Iran and raises questions; including what types of transfers are usually subject to the exceptional effect of land registration; what are the justifications for considering a transfer as the exceptional effect of the land registration; what is the function of the land registration system in relation to transfers subject to the exceptional effect and according to the expected function, how the beneficiaries of such transfers are led to register them. The present study, with a comparative-analytical method, first identifies the examples of transfers subject to exceptional effect in the land registration systems; And by examining the justifications of "acquisition based on the adverse possession", "transfer based on the inheritance" and "transfer based on the court decision" as the three main examples of these transfers - the latter two examples are also present in Iranian legal system – considers "supporting possession based on Labor Theory", "inheritance as a constitutional rule related to the public order" and "the necessity of not denying legal situations resulting from law and judicial decisions" as the most important bases for considering these examples in the realm of the exceptional effect of the land registration, regarding them, the registration system has the declaratory function. In this regard, to encourage the beneficiaries to register transfers subject to the exceptional effect,  the general solution of "relative effect of registration" is proposed; Although it is not clarified in the Iranian legal system, but adherence to it can be observed in the jurisprudence and some circulars according to the principles of registration.

The disenchantment with the structural syllabuses instigated both the language teachers and applied linguists to come up with other more potent ways of promoting language learning and teaching. One of the manifestations of this long-cherished inclination was communicative trend towards language acquisition. To that end, tasks are one of the implementation means and realization tools of achieving fluent communication. In recent years task-based language learning and teaching has gained momentum and been widely endorsed because of its influential effect on fostering language acquisition and application.The impetus to task-based tendency originally emanated from Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1981), Interaction Hypothesis (Long 1981), and the sociocultural view of Vygotsky (1978). The first classroom adaptation of task-based approach was realized by Prabhu's (1987) procedural syllabus. His Communicational Teaching Project which was for the first time performed in secondary schools in India was profoundly task-based. Indeed, task-based teaching is deeply concerned with catering for the learners' cognitive and affective domains. It seeks to promote learners' communicative, discoursal, linguistic, strategic, and socio-cultural competence through natural, authentic, genuine, and creative activities (Moskowitz 1977). The foremost aspiration of task-based teaching is to motivate acquisition via meaning-focused and some form-focused activities (Ellis 2004). This paper endeavours to delineate the manifold dimensions of task-based teaching and learning.

The present study aims to investigate the nominal and the predicative possession schemas in Persian with a cognitive approach. Schemas are abstractions from which the grammatical constructions develop. To this end, Heine's (1997) cognitive approach to the study of the Possession Schemas is considered as the theoretical framework by the authors. The results of the study show that the Action, the Location, the Companion, the Goal and the Source Schemas are used in Persian to encode the predicative possession. Moreover, the Location, the Companion, the Additive, the Genitive, the Source, the Linking and the Topic Schemas encode the nominal possession in Persian. A unique feature of Persian, which is not documented in Heine's cognitive approach, is the use of the Linking Schema to encode the nominal possession. This issue is introduced in this research for the first time. Furthermore, Persian uses the Source Schema to express the predicative possession.

Since in Imamiyeh jurisprudence and civil law, Heyazat Mobahat have been considered as the causes of possession, so that in this article, a brief report is presented on causes of possession, different means to gain possession, and also topics such as unity or diversity of causativeness of Ehya and Heyazat, terms of Heyazat and Ehyaand the evidences of those who believe in causativeness of Heyazat in land possession and its assessment, permission of government in Heyzat and preparation of uncultivated land in the view of the believers in Heyzat of uncultivated lands, Mobahat, commonalities and its most important types are discussed. Causativeness, limit of ownership, base and criteria of establishment of possession in the light of "Heyazat" are the preoccupations of this article.

In a taking possession will, heirs of testator are forbidden to possess property that is subject of a will. There is no distinction, based upon different foundations, among reasons for such prohibition and under different foundations like transferring, appearance, and no need for an acceptance, the result is forbidding heirs from possession of property. The reason for above point is that a testator has an especial right over one-third of his property, therefore, till the time of rejection or acceptance of the will his legal heirs are not permitted to use the testator’, s property. For such a limitation, there is no difference either the testator die or his property transferred to his residuary. Under this foundation that after dying a person his legal heirs becomes owner of the testator’, s property, so it is possible to accept such a result for them in the case under discussion, since there many examples that a testator unable to transfer his ownership upon his property to a third person residuary. In all those cases, like conditional sale contracts and mortgage, a common factor for forbidden a testator is an implying conditions to save property or destroying it by the owner,and a seller would be able to recover the same property or has a right to return it to him by a buyer as well as a mortgager would be able to recover his money by selling the mortgage. In all those cases mentioned in above, a person who is obliged to keep a property itself or has no right to possess it. Because, possession of a property is a matter that is inconsistent with the main purpose of doing legal activities namely a passion either in a form of transferring or destroying it, or condition for saving a property directly or by implication. Under the “, Imamiyyah”,Jurisprudence, it is admitted that until the time of rejection or acceptance of a will by a residuary, those who are testators of a will have not any right to possess the property of a dead person,of course, this is not a rule that easily to accept it since it is in contradiction to rules of ownership and right of rejection to accept a will. In this article, it is tried to support a reason (s) for a prohibition of possession of a testator’, s property against those above rules.

Possession is a universal concept. It can be syntactically represented as one of the two major varieties: Attributive or Predicative. Attributive possession is encoded as a noun phrase containing the possessor and the possesee, while predicative possession is encoded as a sentence. In the present study, predicative possession construction in Rashti Gilaki was investigated with a cognitive approach. Both primary and secondary data were used in this study. A total of 420 sentences were gathered via native Gilaki speakers, all of which verified by other native speakers of the same variety, as well as the data already created in Rastorgueva et. al. (2012). The theoretical framework of the present study is Stassen (2009) in which four major categories are introduced for encoding predicative possession including Locational, With-possessive, Topic possessive and "Have" possessive. The existence of the Locational variety, as well as With-possessives and "Have" possessives were confirmed, while no evidence for the existence of Topic possessives could be found. "Have" possessives occurred more frequently than the other two varieties, making up the overall majority of the data. As a result, it can be considered the main strategy for encoding predicative possession in the Rasht variety of Gilaki.

This paper aims to provide a typological account of nominal and predicative possession constructions in Taleshi. It follows the typological framework of ‎ Aikhenvald (2013), where different attested strategies for the expression of nominal ‎ and predicative possession along with their corresponding functions are touched on. As far as nominal possession constructions in ‎Taleshi are concerned, four strategies are used to exhibit the relationship of ‎ possessor and possessee in a noun phrase: a.juxtaposition, a possessor ending in a ‎vowel precedes the possessee; b. possessor can be marked by number-sensitive oblique case-markers (i- for singular and -u for plural), or alternatively, replaced by ‎ six different possessive pronouns, c. marking the possessee with a pronominal ‎ pertensive clitic along with related information on number and person of the possessor; d.‎ both possessor and possessee may be marked. This is done by replacing the possessor with the suppletive pronoun of ǝštan and the attachment of a pronominal ‎pertensive clitic to the possessee. Just like nominal possession, predicative possession in Taleshi is also expressed in different types of constructions, including ‎ native existential and copular constructions where the characteristics of the so-‎ called H-constructions are evident. In Mâsâli, a borrowed possessive verb of dâšte' to have' is also attested.

The present paper, based on the grammaticalization theory, deals with the concept of possession in Persian (including Old, Middle and New Persian) and shows how the old way of expressing possession using the verb "to be" and dative /benefactive case is replaced by the verb "to have". In a later stage, the verb "to have" has been used to mark the progressive aspect in Modem Persian. This shift from "possession" to "aspect" is a. change that can be seen in many languages and is explained using the concepts of "semantic bleaching" and "metaphor".

This article examines the legal nature of permission and its characteristics, such as being independent, unilateral, and revocable; and determines the constitutional signified in permission contracts. For this purpose, the nature of Insha (legally-purposed intention) and its elements including intention and consent, and also the role of manner of declaration of intention in realization of the juridical acts were investigated. This study asks whether permission is a juridical act or a juridical fact. The study concludes that permission is merely a declarative intentional fact expressing the inner consent, which cannot create a constitutional nature. Rather, it is the legislator who sanctions the permission of possession in such an event. Because the legal effects do not exclusively flow from juridical acts, and some of these effects originate from juridical facts. On the other hand, it is the intention to initiate that can create a constitutional nature. In permission contract, the intention to initiate legal relations has a constitutional nature such as others’ constitutional ownership, and realizes its constitutional existence.