Is it considered usury if a man mortgages agricultural land for a sum of money, and then the lender leases it back to him for a financial amount in return for cultivating and caring for it and for what it produces?

Scholars have differed on the permissibility for the mortgagee to benefit from the mortgaged item if it is in exchange for a loan. The Hanbalis permitted it on condition that the full market rent is paid without favoritism, because it is a benefit derived from leasing, not from the loan. Accordingly, it is permissible for the lender to rent the mortgaged land under this condition, though refraining from it is more cautious to avoid disagreement.