Transferring a land-allocation place for a premium

A question about giving up one's place in the reservation queue for a plot of land with the authority of one of Egypt's new urban communities, in return for a refund of the deposit plus an extra sum known as an 'over', in which Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyya answered that transferring the place and taking the money without going through the competent authority and before meeting its conditions is forbidden, because it circumvents the rules and infringes the right of the next person in line, while taking the premium is valid if it happens after the authority approves, the regulations are met and both parties consent. ¹

The questioner said she had applied to reserve a plot belonging to the authority of a new urban community and paid the reservation deposit, drew nothing in the lottery, and was told that anyone who left the deposit in place would have priority in the next offering; but the plots in the new offering were in another governorate and did not suit her circumstances. ¹ Someone then offered to take her place (her allocation number), so that she would mark for him the plot he wanted, in return for refunding what she had paid plus an additional sum, and she asked whether this additional sum is lawful or forbidden. ¹

Dar al-Ifta first set out the facts: the city authority is administratively part of the New Urban Communities Authority, created by Law 59 of 1979, which reserves and allocates land through committees with defined powers; citing experts, it listed five stages in obtaining such land, from reservation and payment of the deposit to allocation and payment of the down payment and post-dated cheques. ¹ It quoted Cabinet Decree 2904 of 1995, under which the land is handed over to the entitled person by a signed delivery report (article 14) and may not be disposed of within ten years of receipt without the written approval of the head of the competent authority (article 13/f). ¹

It then distinguished two cases. If the transfer goes through the competent authority after the regulations are met, it is valid in sharia whenever both parties consent; Dar al-Ifta cited the hadith that a Muslim's property is lawful only with his willing consent, recorded by al-Darimi, al-Daraqutni, Ahmad, Ibn Abi Shayba and al-Bayhaqi in Shu'ab al-Iman. ¹ It said that mutual consent is the foundation on which financial contracts rest, with offer and acceptance as its outward sign, quoting Shihab al-Din al-Zanjani's Takhrij al-Furu' ala al-Usul (p. 143), and that the default for contracts and conditions is validity unless sharia voids them, referring to al-Sarakhsi's al-Mabsut (23/92), al-Dasuqi's gloss (2/217), Ibn al-Rif'a's Kifayat al-Nabih (9/311) and Ibn Muflih's al-Furu' (7/145). ¹

If instead the transfer bypasses the competent authority and precedes the required steps, Dar al-Ifta held it to be a circumvention of the rules and conditions and an infringement of the right of the next person in the allocation order; it described forms of this such as a power of attorney given to another person, or an oral or informal agreement to transfer in which the transferee pays the deposit and the 'over', sometimes securing himself with trust receipts, all because transfer before delivery is prohibited and leads to cancellation of the place and legal liability. ¹ It ruled such circumvention forbidden, relying on a rule stated by Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam (3/62) that whatever can be reached only through a forbidden act is itself forbidden, and on the hadith of Abu Hurayra forbidding the making lawful of what God forbade by the flimsiest of devices, recorded by Ibn Batta in Ibtal al-Hiyal with a chain that Ibn Kathir called good. ¹ It quoted Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni (4/43) that all legal devices are forbidden, being the display of a permitted contract while intending a forbidden end; al-Shatibi in al-Muwafaqat (5/187) that a device is an outwardly permissible act put forward to defeat a sharia ruling; and al-Khattabi in Ma'alim al-Sunan (3/133) that any device leading to a forbidden thing is void and its ruling does not change with a change of form or name. ¹

Dar al-Ifta concluded that the woman must abide by the terms booklet and by the rules of the New Urban Communities Authority, and that it is forbidden for her to transfer the place or number issued in her name to another person for money in breach of those rules and without the written approval of the responsible official; if, however, the premium is taken after the competent authority approves the transfer and the regulations are met, it is valid in sharia whenever both parties consent, and the whole matter rests with the competent authority. ¹

Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyya published this fatwa on dar-alifta.org as no. 8878, dated 3 February 2026, in the category of compensations, among the fatwas of the Grand Mufti Nazir Muhammad Ayyad. ¹ The museum records this text as a historical document attributed to the body or scholar that issued it; it issues no ruling of its own.