Making both sides of the conflict equally wrong

I'm trying to piece together a backstory for something and I'm having a problem with making sure that both sides of the conflict are equally wrong.

On one hand, there's this guy who owns a sizable chunk of land full of valuable minerals that he refuses to share. Let's call him Owner for now.

On the other hand, there's the Council of Mages who ultimately end up raiding his land and banishing him to another dimension.

The problem I have is: if the Council does this out of greed, they end up being the bad guys. If they do this because the city they live in is poor and the minerals the Owner has would allow them to get out of poverty, this makes HIM the bad guy.

What can I do here?

EDIT: In case a reason is needed for why the Owner refuses to share his belongings: what I currently came up with is that he was initially a student of the Council, but he became disgruntled with how pushy they were with their "every mage has to share everything they have with the Council" dogma, meaning that you have to share your belongings no matter what; he eventually leaves to find something that can belong to him and him alone. I'm not sure if it works, though.

edited 6th Dec '15 12:22:06 PM by ZuTheSkunk

Banishing the Owner to another dimension sounds like Disproportionate Retribution... they could be called out on this. Perhaps this: the village is poor, the Owner refuses to give his land away out of greed. The Mages aren't there to help the people, but because they have a bone to pick with the Owner. Some third party proposes that Owner allows the townsfolk to extract minerals from the ground - he gets to keep the grounds, they get to get some money. The Owner refuses because it would be giving away his own wealth for basically free, the Council refuses because they got into this business being all high and mighty about punishing the Owner and think that settling on a deal like this would make them look bad.

Does this make the slightest sense?

^ Your suggestion sounds reasonable, but it raises a problem of what exactly would be that bone the Council has to pick with the Owner?

Also,

"the Council refuses because they got into this business being all high and mighty about punishing the Owner and think that settling on a deal like this would make them look bad."

I'm not sure if I follow the logic on this part, especially them thinking that it would make them look bad.

Maybe they've been used to getting their way for so long, that the idea of simply compromising is something they are afraid will convince people they are weak.

It's basically ego on their parts, and a desire to stay the top dogs.

That's pretty much what I was thinking, you put it way better. As for the "bone to pick", maybe he's known for insulting wizards or something? Not sure if that wouldn't border on suicidal... Or maybe he insulted one of them once and the others took it as a stain on their joint honour?

Another question: how to make both sides wrong without making either side comically and unrealistically evil?

Maybe make the Owner not actually that rich? The Council comes to him demanding a share of his wealth, he explains he doesn't actually have as much as it seems (maybe mining and processing those materials he's sitting on actually costs quite a lot, and he has a decent but not overly profitable business going), but they refuse to believe him and keep demanding he hand over his wealth for the sake of the town. But even if he wanted to (which he doesn't) he wouldn't have enough to significantly help the town without bankrupting himself.