Is theft from a usurped dwelling considered 'Hirez' (a secure place) sufficient for establishing the legal proof for amputation (cutting off the hand)?

Primary text

Theft committed against property secured within a house that itself was unjustly usurped does not warrant the penalty of amputation (cutting off the hand) for the thief. This ruling applies whether the thief is a stranger or the original owner from whom the house was usurped. The reason is that the property is not considered legally secured (Hirez) because the possessor of the house is an aggressor and a wrongdoer by virtue of the usurpation.