it is more deserving of it, just like one who is earlier to a watering place. If the land of the upper owner is varied, consisting of both high-lying and low-lying parts, he shall irrigate each of them separately. If two individuals are equal in their proximity to the start of the river, they shall divide the water between themselves if possible; if it is not possible, lots shall be drawn between them, and the one for whom the lot falls shall be prioritized. If the water is not in excess for both of them, the one for whom the lot falls shall irrigate to the extent of his right to the water, then leave the rest for the other. He does not have the right to irrigate using all of the water, because the other is his equal in the entitlement to the water, and the lot is only for prioritization in fulfilling the right, not in the essence of the right, unlike the case of the upper [landowner] with the lower one, for the lower has no right except in what remains after the upper one. If the land of one of them is larger than the land of the other, the water shall be divided between them in proportion to the land, because the excess of the land of one of them is equal in proximity, so he becomes entitled to a portion (72) of the water, just as if it belonged to a third person.

If a group holds the right of irrigation (shar) from a non-owned pond (73) or a torrent, and a person comes to revive dead land (mawat) that is closer to the head of the river than their land, he does not have the right to irrigate before them; because they were earlier to the river than him, and because whoever owns land owns it with its rights and appurtenances, and no one else possesses the right to nullify its rights, and this is among its rights. Do they have the right to prevent him from reviving that dead land? There are two views: One of them is that they do not have the right to prevent him, because their right is in the river, not in the dead land. The second is that they do have the right to prevent him, so that it does not become a pretext to deprive them of their right to irrigation, by his having priority over them due to proximity if time passes and the situation becomes unknown. If we say: they do not have the right to prevent him, and someone precedes him to a watercourse or non-owned river, and he revives dead land at its lower end, then another revives land above him, and a third revives land above the second, the lower one shall have priority in irrigation, then the second, then the third; priority in revival is placed before priority in [proximity to] the head of the river, for the reason we mentioned.

Section: The second type is water (74) flowing in a privately-owned river, and this is also of two kinds. One of them is that the water is originally permissible, such as if a person digs a small river that connects to a...