The second is where he has contributed nothing of his own other than labor, such as sewing, weaving, grinding wheat, or making permanent fixtures and their doors from a piece of timber, and similar work.

The first category—where he has used his own resources to add materials that remain physically present—falls into two cases:

The first is where the property can be restored to its original condition, such as a plot of land between the two parties, and similar cases.

The second is where it cannot be restored to its original condition, such as cloth that he dyes, a hide that he tans, or roasted-grain meal that he moistens, and similar cases.

In the first case, the owner may choose between requiring the person who seized the property to restore the plot to its original condition and remove any building materials belonging to him, or paying him the value of those materials as dismantled and lying on the ground, less the cost of dismantling. This was stated by Ibn Sha‘bān and adopted by Ibn al-Mawwāz. This applies when the person who seized the property would not undertake the work himself or through his slaves, but would hire someone to do it. Another view is that the cost of dismantling should not be deducted, in accordance with Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in al-Mudawwana. Ibn Dahhūn adopted this view, arguing that, had the person who seized the property demolished the structure, the owner would not have been entitled to take the materials at their assessed value after demolition.

If the structure erected by the person who seized the property contains nothing that would have any value once dismantled, he is entitled to nothing from the owner. The owner has the right to require him to demolish the structure and restore the plot to its original condition. If the owner waives that right against him, the person who seized the property has no grounds for a claim. This is supported by the Prophet’s statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“No right attaches to a root established wrongfully.”

In the second case, the owner may choose between paying the value of the dye or similar materials and taking back his cloth, or holding the person who seized it liable for the cloth’s value on the day he seized it, except in the case of roasted-grain meal that he mixes with clarified butter,