Should the brother pay the current value of the land or its value from 27 years ago?

If a father buys land, and then a brother betrays the trust and registers it in his own name, this is usurpation (ghasb) and injustice (dhulm). If the father then sells the land to his treacherous brother because he is unable to reclaim it after the usurpation, the sale is void because it falls under sales made under duress (buyu' al-ikrah). In this case, the land remains the property of its owner, and the usurper is only entitled to what he paid previously.

However, if the sale was by mutual consent, the owner of the land has no right to demand an increase in price, even if the price has risen, because the debtor is obligated to pay what was established as due at the time the obligation was incurred. If the debtor is in straitened circumstances, he should be given respite until he can afford it. If he is a wealthy person who procrastinates, then the procrastination of the rich is injustice, and his case should be referred to the Sharia (definition) judge to compel him to pay. Some scholars are of the opinion that what is obligatory is to pay the current value of the land.