Do aforamento à grilagem de terras : a constituição da propriedade privada das terras da cidade de Chapada dos Guimarães

• Ano de defesa: 2024
• Autor(a) principal: Sousa, Verbena Florencia de
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso; Brasil; Instituto de Geografia, História e Documentação (IGHD); UFMT CUC - Cuiabá; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geografia
• Palavras-chave em Português: Grilagem institucional; Grilagem patrimonialista; Aforamento; Propriedade privada capitalista da terra; CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::GEOGRAFIA; Institutionalized land grabbing; Patrimonialist land grabbing; Leasehold; Private capitalist land ownership
• Link de acesso: http://ri.ufmt.br/handle/1/6731

The history of the capitalist privatization of land in Brazil reveals the incorporation of various temporalities and antecedent forms to the capitalist mode of production, namely non-capitalist forms, which encompass different types of public land concessions, such as sesmarias at the federal level, leaseholds at the municipal level, and others. In addition to these antecedent forms of access to land, land grabbing is included, here understood as the irregular appropriation of public lands, whether mediated by payment or not. In this context, an analysis was conducted on the concessions of municipal public lands in Chapada dos Guimarães, Mato Grosso, examining the scope of these concessions, the irregularities involved, their beneficiaries, and the consequences – particularly highlighting land concentration and the resulting conflicts. For this purpose, a documentary base was utilized, consisting of local legal instruments and 16 property registration books issued by the municipality, which contain 1,739 active records, divided between leasehold concessions and donations made by the municipal government. The analysis of these documents allows us to state that a considerable portion of the public lands in Chapada dos Guimarães has been appropriated through two strategies: institutional land grabbing and patrimonialist land grabbing. Institutional land grabbing has been present across various local administrations and occurs in three forms: first, when the municipality granted areas larger than the legally permitted limit; second, through the concession of areas that the municipality did not own; and third, through the improper appropriation of state and/or private lands. This may or may not be combined with patrimonialist land grabbing, which intertwines practices of patrimonialism and corruption. Furthermore, a generalization of patrimonialist practices was observed through the failure to fulfill obligations associated with the leasehold, culminating in the informal transformation of useful domain property into full private property.