No. People don't raise armies to steal land that's worthless. If you're going back to pre-history then the land near a nice river that has plenty of game, isn't predated by larger animals, and has nice fruit trees is worth way more to a person than some section of desert.
If right to live on land also goes with rights to exploit resources beneath the land then disparities in value as you approach the industrial era become massive.
You start with a place with nice fruit trees near the river, then a few people build their houses there, then someone builds roads and a port, then someone builds larger houses, then someone builds factories... and at some moment in the future, there is a huge city, but the river is poluted and the trees were cut down.
There is another place with no trees and no river. Hundred years later, there is no city.
The key thing to note is that this isn't the only model of land ownership possible. There are other that are more fair (land value taxes and community land trusts for example).
To be clear, I don't really have anything against individual landowners; it's the system that's unjust.
The land itself had to be acquired somehow. The very first owner paid for an army to take the land from the indigenous population that "owned" it, and that "cost" is a chain that is linked all the way to today (and at every step of the transaction, somebody profits by increasing the price a bit).
So either you raise another army today (at an even greater cost) to acquire the land, or you pay the asking price from the current owners.