Who owns a mineral discovered in land that was revived (cultivated/built upon)?

Primary text

If one revives barren land, thereby gaining ownership, and a mineral appears within it, that mineral belongs to the owner, whether it is surface or subsurface, provided it is a solid mineral. This is because ownership of the land includes all its parts and layers, and the mineral is considered part of this. This differs from buried treasure (*kanz*), which is deposited within the land and is not part of its structure. Furthermore, this situation differs from a mineral that was already apparent before the revival, because in that case, the reviver would be cutting off a benefit previously accessible to the Muslims and preventing them from an entitlement they already possessed. Here, nothing is cut off because the mineral only became manifest due to his act of bringing it forth.