Is the land granted by the state a right for the questioner, even if he did not claim it in the past period, especially after his older brother merged it with his land, under the pretext that the questioner would receive a gift in the future?

The questioner did not clarify the effect of merging the land, nor whether it became the property of his elder brother or what. The brother's disposition of the land without the permission of the questioner or his guardian has no effect. The questioner's silence regarding this disposition is not considered permission, and he has the right to claim his land; because silence is not in itself consent and does not forfeit the owner's right.

The original state is the continuation of the questioner's ownership, and his hand cannot be removed from it except with certainty, while mere silence only indicates conjecture, especially since it may be due to reasons such as shyness, reverence, or hesitation. According to the Kuwaiti Fiqh Encyclopedia, negative silence is not evidence of consent or lack thereof, unless it is accompanied by circumstantial evidence and conditions indicating consent.

Since the questioner stated that he is not satisfied with relinquishing his land, he has the right to claim it.