Is the usurpation of immovable property legally considered valid by the Hanafi school?

Primary text

The usurpation of immovable property is not legally considered valid by Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. They hold that it cannot be usurped and is not guaranteed by usurpation. If the usurper destroys it, they are liable due to destruction (*itlaf*), not usurpation, because relocation or transformation (*naql wa tahwil*) is not present, similar to when one prevents another from accessing their movable property, which then perishes. They define usurpation as aggressively establishing possession in a manner that removes the owner's possession, which they argue cannot happen with real estate.