Should the land's value at the time of its receipt be repaid, or its current value, to atone for its wrongful sale?

The usurped land must be returned to its owner. If that is not possible, then its value at the time the usurped item was destroyed or became impossible to return must be given back. There is a disagreement among jurists regarding whether the owner is entitled to both the value of the land and its usufruct (rent).

The Hanafis and Malikis held that the owner cannot combine taking both the value and the usufruct because guaranteed items become owned by the payment of the guarantee retroactively to the time of usurpation, thus the usufruct becomes the right of the usurper. Whereas the Shafi'is and Hanbalis believe that the owner combines both, because the benefits were lost to the owner due to the usurper's hand, and the usurper must guarantee them. So the value is for the item itself, and the usufruct is for the benefit.

The disagreement stems from the question of whether the usurper owns the usurped item by paying the guarantee or not.