[Puffer Fish]

You say there are other reasons but you do not explain them. The fact that you mention that it would mean communism is not a rational argument.

There are few arguments.
Economic (the "tragedy of the commons"). Individual ownership creates economic incentives, inherent in the system of ownership.
Securing individual rights and helping to prevent government from having too much economic power. If individuals do not economically make decisions over the land (and in particular the productive and economically important land) then government does. Which creates a huge centralisation of power. A single owner also is more likely to exert direct management, raising productivity. Those who manage land with less efficiency will be under an incentive to sell.

There is the big issue of improvements on the land. People should be incentivized to invest and make improvements on the land. It is much harder (though not impossible) to secure that investment if they do not have an ownership in the land under their investments. Things like buildings cannot be easily moved.

And then the economic question of how to ration out the land, because there may be limited land in desirable areas that have higher levels of economic opportunity where people want to live.
Private ownership is not a perfect and absolutely fair way to ration out land, of course, nor is it completely "efficient", but it does seem to be an established and not totally controversial method towards that purpose.