What is the ruling if the land diminishes in value due to neglect or other reasons when the usurper abstains from cultivation?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Usurpation
Primary text
If the owner reclaims the land and the crop is still standing, the owner cannot force the usurper to remove it. If the land diminishes due to the abandonment of cultivation, such as the farmlands of Basra, or for any other reason, the usurper is liable for the decrease based on established principles from previous rulings.
Supporting text
The majority of jurists hold that the owner possesses the right to compel the usurper to remove the crop, treating it like a permanent planting (Gharas), citing the Hadith, 'The vain claimant has no right.' This is because it was planted unjustly on another's land, resembling permanent planting. Conversely, the view supporting non-removal relies on the Hadith reported by Rafi' ibn Khadij: 'Whoever plants on the land of a people without their permission, he has nothing of the crop, but he owes them their expenses.' This indicates the usurper cannot be forced to uproot it because the crop belongs to the landowner. Another narration supports that the Prophet, peace be upon him, allowed the cultivator to take the crop and only reimburse the land owner for expenses.