if he planted it in the land subject to pre-emption (shuf'ah). If he refuses to uproot them, then if they offer him the value so that the insolvent person may own them, or if they wish to uproot them while guaranteeing the decrease in value caused by the uprooting, they have the right to do so. The same applies if they wish to uproot them without guaranteeing the decrease; because the insolvent person only bought them to be uprooted, so he is not obligated to keep them in his land. It is said: They do not have the right to uproot them without guaranteeing the decrease, because it is a planting done by right, so it resembles the insolvent person's planting in land he bought when its seller reclaims it. The difference between the two is clear: for keeping the plants in this scenario is a right that the seller is entitled to, so it is not obligatory upon him by his own action. In the previous scenario, keeping them is a right the planter is entitled to, so it became his right by virtue of his planting in his own property. If some of them choose to uproot and others choose to keep them, the opinion of those requesting the uprooting is given precedence, whether it is the insolvent person, the creditors, or some of the creditors; because keeping them is a harm that is not mandatory, so the one who refuses it cannot be compelled to accept it. If the plants increase in value while in the land, that is an attached increase which prevents reclaiming according to the view of al-Khiraqi, but does not prevent it according to the narration of al-Maymuni.

Section: If he bought land from a man and plants from another, then planted them in it, then became insolvent and the trees did not increase, each of them has the right to reclaim his specific property. The owner of the land has the right to uproot the plants without guaranteeing the decrease in their value caused by the uprooting, as we have mentioned, because the seller only sold them to be uprooted, so he is not entitled to them except in that state. If the seller of the plants wishes to uproot them from the land and does so, he must level the excavation and guarantee the decrease in the land's value resulting from it, for the reasons previously mentioned. If the owner of the plants offers the value of the land to its owner so that he may own it, he is not compelled to do so, because the land is the foundation, and he is not compelled to sell it as a consequence. If the owner of the land offers the value of the plants to own them when the owner refuses to uproot them, he has that right; because the planting occurred on the property of another by right, so it resembles the insolvent person's planting in the seller's land. It is also possible that he does not have the right to own them, because he is not compelled to keep them if he refuses to pay their value or the compensation for the decrease, so he would not have the right to acquire them by value, unlike the previous case. The first view is more appropriate, and this is invalidated by the planting of a usurper.