Is it permissible to transplant fruitful trees located on agricultural land that previously belonged to the state and has now returned to its original owners, and to benefit from them after revitalizing the land, and what is the ruling on their fruits if they are transplanted or left in place?

If lands are expropriated for public benefit and their owners are justly compensated, then the trees belong to the Muslims, and it is permissible for whoever tended them – not as a volunteer – to eat from their fruits in proportion to what they exerted. If they were not rightfully expropriated and returned to their owners, then it is not permissible to move the trees except with their permission, and they must tend to them, and whoever tended them may eat from their fruits in proportion to what they exerted. If the state plants trees on private land, the landowners have the right to remove them because "a root planted unjustly has no right," and they should be moved to public facilities or purchased from them for the benefit of the Muslims. As for the fruits of trees owned by the Muslims, anyone may eat from them and benefit from them, and whoever tended them has priority proportionate to what they exerted. However, if the trees are private property, anyone passing by may eat from them without taking anything, and whoever takes something is subject to fine and punishment.