Society accepts and protects property ownership of land but is not the only method possible. Legal rights and social processes are just the most agreeable way to manage it amongst several people.

For example, You can own land if there is no society or other people to contest it. If you are alone on a island, there is no one to say you don't own it

Similarly, you can own land without social dependence if you have the power take or defend it.

If you've ever been mugged or read of nations conquered, it is clear that social consensus and the rule of law is but one mode of arbitrating property ownership. That said, it is one that works out quite well

> If you are alone on a island, there is no one to say you don't own it

Ownership has no meaning unless you can identify who does not have it, which requires at least one other person nearby. If you are alone on an island, you are just occupying it.

> Similarly, you can own land without social dependence if you have the power take or defend it.

This requires an army or militia, or an overwhelming technological advantage over those you are dispossessing. Those imply operating in a societ. Otherwise where does your militia and technology come from?