for example, by serving for three-quarters of the term over which the usufruct is enjoyed, then they have acted fairly. Now, when the first grantee cultivated the land with his own labour, seed, and oxen, and part of its usufruct became someone else’s entitlement, he became a cultivator on another’s land. Yet he is not a usurper whose crop may lawfully be destroyed. Rather, his crop enjoys legal protection, like a tenant’s—and with even greater reason.

Here the jurists hold three views:

The first is that the crop belongs to the cultivator, who must pay the fair rental value of the usufruct belonging to the second grantee.

The second is that the crop belongs to the landholder, who must reimburse the first grantee for what he spent on his crop. These two views are well known.

When someone cultivates another’s land without permission, does the crop belong to the cultivator, or does it belong to the landholder, who takes it and reimburses the cultivator’s expenses? In the Sunan collections, Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj reports that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Whoever cultivates people’s land without their permission has no share of the crop, and he bears its expenses.”

There are two views on this, and the issue is well known. The second is the position of Ahmad and others, while the first is the position of al-Shāfiʿī and others.

The cultivator in the case under discussion is not a usurper. Nevertheless, his situation is comparable to that of someone deemed to have cultivated another’s land without permission. He is like someone who trades with wealth he believes to be his own, only to discover that it belongs to someone else. In this matter there is a “third view,” namely the one adopted by the revenue officials.