What is meant by "right" in the jurists' saying, "Whoever precedes to a permissible thing has more right to it"? Does this include legal ownership, especially if a father demarcated land and dug a well in it without reaching water, then left it for more than 50 years due to extenuating circumstances, and then passed away? Do his heirs still have a right to it, and is it permissible for anyone to dispossess them of it despite its clear demarcation and the existence of witnesses to the demarcation?

The meaning of "has a greater right to it" is that whoever takes possession of an unowned, barren land or a well, and begins to revive it by marking its boundaries, has a greater right to it than others. He should not be disturbed until his revival of it is complete, whereupon it becomes his property. The same applies to whoever is the first to acquire something permissible that can be possessed by taking hold of it, such as grass or firewood, or seats in markets and on roads, or a lost item to identify its owner, or a foundling to care for it.

A condition for reviving barren land and wells is that the period of marking the boundaries should not be prolonged customarily, such as three years. Otherwise, the ruler would give him the choice between reviving it or leaving it for someone else to revive.

The well in question was not owned merely by the marking of boundaries and the commencement of revival, as long as its revival was not completed. The one who marked the boundaries has a greater right to it as long as his marking remains and the period has not been prolonged. However, if the marking or the well has disappeared, or the period has been prolonged, and someone else seeks to revive it, the previous marking is not considered valid, and anyone who wishes to revive it may proceed to do so.