Barren means abandoned land which no one uses either because it is not needed because of some obstacle, like lack of water or floods, sands, stones or because it is marsh land etc.

Rule (706) Dead or barren lands are of two kinds:

(a) Originally barren is the land about which no one knows whether there lived any people or it is known that there lived no one like most of forests, valleys, open fields and mountains etc. (b) Empty and not-populated for some reason; because population is destroyed or it is abandoned.

Rule (707) It is lawful for any one to revive and establish the land mentioned in (a), apparently, such person becomes the owner, regardless, he is a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

Rule (708) The kind of lands mentioned in (b) are of several kinds:

(1) The land which has no owner like the old abandoned and ruined lands, towns and villages and canals filled up and leveled, that belonged to nations of the past of whom no one is left nor even their names or traces, or such lands are called to have been of a people of whom nothing but their name is left. (2) The land, which has an owner but no one, knows him in person. (3) The land which has a known owner. The land in (1) is like the ones in (a) and cannot be dealt with under the rules of the property of unknown owner. Could the land in (2) be revived and established, there are two views about it. According to the popular view it can be revived, but it is a precautionary rule to search

for the owner and when there is no hope left of finding the owner it is dealt with like a property of unknown owner, thus, it is bought from the high authority in sharia or his representative authorized to deal with such matters, and the payment for it is spent for the needy or it is rented from him for certain amount of rent or fair market value rent and again it is given to the needy. This is when it is not known that the owner has abandoned it, but if it is known that he has abandoned, it is lawful to revive and establish it without any one's permission. In the case of the land in (3) if the owner has abandoned, it is lawful for any one to revive it if he has not abandoned but has kept it non-established to use it as grassland or he is waiting for the right time and tools etc, in such a case, there is no doubt that it is not lawful to revive and establish such lands without the permission of the owner. But if it is known that the land is not used only because the owner does not care about it and that he does not have any intention to revive it, apparently, it is lawful for another party to revive it if the previous owner had owned it through reviving, and he cannot get it back from the second reviver, although it is a precautionary rule that if the first owner comes to him he should receive his right and it should not be used without his permission. If the ownership is through other means like purchasing or inheritance according to a precautionary rule, it is not lawful for others to revive it and use without his permission; if it is used for plantation etc, a rent should be paid to the owner according to a precautionary rule.

Rule (709) Just as it is lawful to revive old ruined towns and broken down villages the residents of which are vanished, it also is lawful to revive and refurbish and use the materials of buildings and houses. The person who reserves them is the owner when he takes with intention to own them.

Rule (710) The endowed land and property abandoned and ruined are of several kinds: (1) That there is no detail available about the by-laws of such property whether the beneficiaries were certain people or general public, whether they were to benefit certain causes or certain people. (2) That it is known that the beneficiaries were certain groups of people but there is no trace of such people left, or that the beneficiaries were certain people of whom nothing besides their name is left.

(3) That the beneficiary is a certain project but it is not specifically known whether it is a mosque, a school, a shrine, or cemetery etc. (4) That certain people are beneficiaries but they are not personally known like when it is known that the owner made it an endowment for his progeny who he knows exist. (S) That it is known that the beneficiaries are specified causes and / or people particularly known. (6) That it is only known in general that the owner made it an endowment, but it is not known whether it was for a certain cause like a certain school or the beneficiaries are the owner's offspring particularly known but in accordance with standard of sharia there is no proof in favor of any of the two. In the case in (1) and (2), apparently, there is no objection for any one to revive such properties; he becomes the owner, such properties are like all other barren lands. In the case of (3), according to well-known view it is lawful to revive it but it is not free from objection. It is a precautionary rule for one who revives it by farming or building to ask the high authority in sharia or his representative for permission and pay fair market rent to him who spends for good causes. He can buy it or rent it for a certain rent and the same rule applies to the case in(4).

In the case of (5) it is necessary for one who revives or builds such property to pay fair market value rent and spend it for the specified cause if it is for a cause or give to the specified beneficiaries, if it is for them and it is necessary that the property be used with the permission of the supervisor or the beneficiaries. In the case of (6) it is necessary for one who revives or builds such property to pay fair market value rent and it is necessary to spend for the specified cause by the permission of the offspring of the donor and it also is necessary to have permission for using it from the supervisor if any, otherwise, permission of high authority in sharia or his agent. If the offspring would not permit spending on the cause the matter is decided by casting lots to determine the beneficiaries.

Rule (711) If one revives some land he is entitled to own certain area (called Harim) of the land which may not be part of revived land and such areas are those places without which one cannot benefit from the land and no one else can revive such part without the consent of the owner.

Rule (712) Harim of a house is the way to and from it at its entrance and the place to keep the refuse and sewerage area and the like.

Rule (713) The Harim of the walls of a garden consists of an area, which would be needed to use for keeping the material to build the walls whenever alteration is needed.

Rule (714) Harim of a canal consists of the area where the soils and things which are collected when cleaning the canal could be kept, when such works are needed to be done and a proper path along it to reach and to watch it.

Rule (715) Harim of a well consists of the area where a person getting water can stand if it is manual at places where animals come and go and the place where water is collected for plants etc; the places where when clearing the well, materials taken out of it could be kept etc.

Rule (716) - Harim of a spring like the above cases are the area which make it possible to use the spring.

Rule (717) Harim of a village are the areas which are needed to safeguard its interest and the interests of its population, like recreation places, dump sites, drainage areas, roads to and from it, cemeteries, grasslands for their animals etc., all of these are to the limit the population needs that if some others would bother with such places it would cause hardships to the people of the town. There is no other standard to specify such areas and no one must do any thing to such places, which would cause difficulties to the people therein.

Rule (718) Harim of a farm or plantation is the area and places, which make it possible to reach to benefit from it, like the paths to and from it and the area necessary to keep the materials needed for it.

Rule (719) The lands said to be of the Arab tribes or non-Arab tribes because they are close to where these people lived when they have not practically assumed ownership by means of reviving them, such lands still have the original condition of being lawful to use. Thus, it is not permissible for these people to prevent others from using such places or demand rent. If they divide such lands among themselves to stop

disputes such divisions are not valid thus any one of them can use any part of such lands. However, if they may need such lands for grassland and pastures etc, in such case it will be considered as Harim of their properties and it is not permissible for others to cause them hardships by using such lands.

Rule (720) For wells there is another kind of Harim namely there must be enough distance between two wells so that one is not affected by the digging of the new one by making the water flow off the old well.

Rule (721) For springs and canals also there is another kind of Harim similar to that of the well namely, the distance between two springs or two waterway tunnels must be, in hard grounds, 250 yards and 500 yards in soft grounds. This limitation, however, is an approximate one because the effect of one on the other is mostly zero because of by such distance, and it is not like an unexplained act of worship. Therefore, if the second spring or canal affects the first one despite the said distance between them, apparently, it is not permissible to create another spring or canal, thus, the distance must be enough to stop the unwanted effect on the first spring or canal or the owner of first spring agrees or on the other hand a lesser distance would stop the unwanted effect of reducing the water of the first spring or canal because of the creation of new spring. Apparently, it is permissible to create a second spring etc, regardless, it is created in a barren and dead land or in an owned land and just as it is necessary that the second spring must not have bad effects on first one, the same rule applies to the second case wherein the land is already owned. The same is the case with creating a new well and canal or brooks next to an existing one whenever no harm is caused to first well or canal or brook it is lawful.

Rule (722) It is lawful to revive the dead land around the wells and canals besides the area called HARIM which makes it possible to benefit from canals etc, and the second kind of Harim for wells etc, is applicable only to canals etc. created afterwards etc.

Rule (723) If the dead barren lands are not of the Harim of the established and owned lands it is lawful for any one to revive them

even if such lands are very close to the established lands and the owners of the nearby lands have no priority to others.

Rule (724) Apparently, Harim in general is not the property of the person who owns the property that has the Harim, regardless, it is the Harim of a well canal or a house etc., the fact is that it is not lawful for any one to cause him hardships because such areas are subordinate to his property.

Rule (725) There is no Harim for the adjacent properties for example if two owners build a wall at the boundary-line of the two properties, such wall does not have any Harim on either side; in the same way if one party builds a wall at the boundary-line of his own property such wall does not have any Harim in the adjacent property.

Rule (726) Every owner is entitled to use his property the way he likes as long as such use is not harmful to his neighbor, otherwise, apparently, it is not lawful, such as when because of construction the neighbor's property is damaged or building a water storage which leaks water to neighbor's property and causes damage or a sewerage system that leaks into neighbors well etc, or digging new well near that of neighbor's which affects the latter. Apparently, it makes a difference whether the second well drains water from the first well because of being deeper than the first or some other reason. However, there is no offense in building a house higher even if it would prevent sun's rays and wind.

Rule (727) If because of one's using his own property a considerable harm is caused to a neighbor and such harm is not negligible among neighbors, such use is not lawful, if one does, he has to remove it. This is when not using does not harm the owner, otherwise, there are two views about the lawfulness of such use, precaution about not making such use should not be ignored, also, on precautionary grounds, if not a strong reason, one is responsible for the damage caused to a neighbor due to such use according to common sense, like the leaking sewerage system that leaks into neighbor's well in which case it is necessary to remove such system, but if removing or repair cannot be done and not having it is harmful to owner, removing and keeping such system, both are objectionable and the precautionary rule should not be ignored.

Apparently, such rule is not applicable if the well is dug after the sewerage system.

Rule (728) If one of believers comes before others to a land with trees that could yield benefits, he becomes the owner. This can only take place when he establishes his control as such that it is now out of other's control.

Rule (729) There are a number of HADITH which strongly recommend to be considerate towards neighbors and maintain good social relations with neighbors. They must not be harmed and harms stopped from reaching them. In some Hadith it is said, "a neighbor is like one's self, and he is respectable as one's mother. In some other Hadith it is said "good neighborly manners increases one's income, develops the neighborhood, makes people live longer. Another Hadith says,"one who stops his harm from reaching the neighbors, it keeps him safe from falling on the Day of Judgement. Another Hadith says,"one who does not have good neighborly manners is not of us." There are still other Hadith with stronger recommendations about good neighborly manners.

Rule (730) It is recommended that a neighbor should ask permission of neighbor if he needs to place one end of the beam of his house on the neighbor's wall; even if the neighbor agrees he can still ask him to remove the beam before the construction or afterwards, provided, removing is not damaging, otherwise, due to a more clear reason, keeping is not lawful.

Rule (731) If two neighbors dispute about a wall which is in possession of none of them, it will go to the one who takes an oath, when the other party refuses to take oath. If both take oath or refuse, the wall would belong to both. If it is attached to only one party's building or he has plans for it, the wall would go to him after his taking oath.

Rule (732) If there arises dispute between up-stairs and down-stairs people, the words of down stairs people are accepted about the walls of house and those of the up-stairs about the ceiling and walls of the rooms and the stairs, but if there is storage under the stairs it could belong to down-stairs and the passage way to up-stairs belong to both and the rest belongs to people down-stairs.

Rule (733) A neighbor can bend back branches of trees leaning to his property from that of neighbor's. If it cannot be done, he can cut it by the permission of the neighbor and if the neighbor refuses, the high authority in sharia would make him agree.

Rule (734) The rider of a load carrier animal has priority to it than the one who is holding the reins.

Rule (735) In taking valid possession of dead land it is necessary that it is free of anyone else's reservations; if one revives such land without the permission of the reserving party the reviver cannot have valid possession. A reservation can take place by any indication of one's intention to revive, like fencing around, digging foundations, the old well or canals, and digging only one of such well is a reservation for other wells of the waterway tunnels, in fact, it is reservation for the dead land which is watered thereby, thus, others cannot revive such reserved lands.

Rule (736) If one digs a well in an originally barren and dead land to dig one of the wells of waterway tunnels, apparently, is enough for the reservation of the other wells of waterway tunnels as well as the barren lands to which water therefrom reaches after the well is completed and others cannot revive such lands.

Rule (737) Reservation as noted only serves to give priority to the reserving party, it does not make one the owner of reserved lands, despite this, however, it is not an offense to transfer the reserved lands to another by selling etc; what is not transferable is the right itself because it is a right but the subject of the right can be transferred.

Rule (738) Reservation is only effective as long as the party is able to revive the reserved lands; if he fails to do so for some reason like lack of funds and tools etc., on which reviving depends, in such case others can revive it.

Rule (739) If one reserves a piece larger than what is possible for him to revive, his reservation of the extra area is not effective.

Rule (740) One who is not able to revive and establish barren lands, if he reserves some of such land he cannot transfer such lands to others through selling or gift etc.

Rule (741) It is not necessary to personally do the reservation work; one's agent or employee can do it and the right so established would go to him, not to the agent or employee.

Rule (742) If one reserves some barren land on behalf of some one else and then that person agrees to what is done on his behalf, would the right be established in favor of principal in such case or not; there are two views about it, the latter has greater possibility to be true.

Rule (743) When the signs of reservation are gone if it is because of neglect, his right is no more effective and it is lawful for others to revive it, but if it is not due to neglect, in fact, some thing beyond his control may have done it like strong winds etc., in such case, to consider his right ineffective is not free from objection.

Rule (744) It is necessary for the person reserving lands to start reviving them after the reservation, if he delays it for a long time, others reviving such lands without his permission is objectionable, according to a precautionary rule, the case should be presented to high authority in sharia with him or his agent and he will be made to go with one of the two choices, revive or give up. If he gives good reason he will be given enough time until such reason is over. If after this he starts the work, it settles the case, otherwise, his right turns to be of no effect and others will be allowed to revive it. If high authority in sharia cannot be reached, apparently, the right of the reserving party remains of no effect if he has delayed reviving long enough that common practice would call it as neglected. According to a precautionary rule his rights should be preserved for three years.

Rule (745) Apparently, establishing ownership through reviving does not require formal decision to possess, only deciding to revive and benefit himself or one like him is enough. If one digs a well in a forest to use for one's needs, he becomes the owner but when he leaves the place for good, it is then lawful for all to use it.

Rule (746) It is necessary for a proper reviving to establish and develop the land good enough to be called as becoming an example of these

categories: a house, a garden, a farm, reserved land, a well, a waterway tunnel, or a canal etc., thus, the degree of development varies from case to case. The degree of development of a house is different from that of a garden and so on, but when it is doubtful as whether the required development is achieved or not the rule to follow is that it is not achieved.