It admits of two views. If the owner prevents him from spreading it, or if he returns it and the usurper requests that [the owner] do so, and there is a purpose in returning it, such as removing damage or for liability, then he has the right to spread and return it, and he owes the equivalent rent for the duration of its occupancy and the value of its depreciation. If he took the soil of a land and molded it (12) for building, he must return it, and he has no claim to anything, unless he had mixed straw into it, in which case he is entitled to undo it and take his straw. If nothing can be obtained from it, there are two views, based on the issue of scraping off decorations when it has [no value. If the owner demands he undo it, he is obligated to do so if there is a purpose for it, and if there is no] (13) purpose for it, there are two views. If he made it into bricks or pottery, he must return it, and he has no right to wages for his labor, nor does he have the right to break it, and the owner cannot compel him to do so; because that is senseless, does not yield any benefit, is a destruction of property, and is a waste, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the wasting of property (14).

Section: If he usurped land and dug a well in it, and the owner demands he fill it in, he is obligated to do so; because it harms the land, and because the soil is his [the owner's] property, which he [the usurper] had moved from its place, so he is obligated to return it, just like the soil of the land. The same applies if he dug a river in it, or dug a well in a man's property without his permission. If the usurper wants to fill it in and the owner prevents him, we examine: if he has a purpose in filling it, such as being absolved from the liability of what might fall into it, or if he had transported its soil to his own property, or to the property of another, or to a path that needs to be cleared, then he has the right to return it; because of the purpose therein. Al-Shafi'i held this view. If he has no purpose in filling the well, such as if he had placed the soil in the property of the one from whom it was usurped, and the one from whom it was usurped absolved him of what he had dug and gave him permission for it, he does not have the right to fill it, according to one of the two views; because it is a destruction that has no benefit, so he should not be permitted to do it, just as if he had usurped a silver bullion, minted it into dirhams, and then wanted to turn it back into a bullion. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, al-Muzani, and some of the Shafi'i scholars. Some of them said: He has the right to fill it. This is the second view we hold; because he is not absolved of liability by the owner's absolution, as it is an absolution for something that has not yet become due, and it is also an absolution from the right of another, which is the one who might fall into it.