Is Zakat due on stolen livestock when the owner considers them fed, but the usurper considers them grazing animals?

Primary text

If the livestock were considered fed (Ma'lūfah) by the owner but grazing animals (Sā'imah) by the usurper, there are two opinions. The primary opinion states no Zakat is due because the owner did not consent to their grazing status, meaning the usurper's act does not establish Zakat upon the owner, just as if the animals grazed without the owner intending this status. The secondary view is that Zakat is due because the status of grazing necessitates Zakat from the owner, which consequently necessitates it from the usurper, akin to when they are grazing for both parties. This is also compared to usurping land and cultivating it, where Ushr becomes due.