Perhaps the unwanted occupants are indeed "building on >ADVERSE POSSESSION< claims but even here the law to local. National levels clearly define the necessity of TRANSPARENCY by making abundantly clear: >The notoriety of the possession puts the owner on NOTICE that the land will be lost unless he or she seeks to recover possession of it WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME<. Such intention besides many other already evident support would be a subjective element in the more and more obvious effect of appropriation than anything else, quite so?