tudy will be the following one: The general provisions of the Statutes (LRA 1925 and LRA 2002) will be presented primarily – especially their provisions for the adverse law possession. At a next section the particular aspects of JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom) will be presented trying to identify the elements the case that can be used in order to support the position of landowners that are in danger of loosing their land through adverse possession. Finally, the literature that has been published on the particular issue will be developed trying to aligning the assumptions that are stated in the theory with the existed law suggesting changes where the relevant legal orders are not clear or where additional provisions need to be incorporated in current legal orders that regulate the adverse law possession. In other words, the research will be a qualitative one – no data to be involved – while the comparison of the existed legal provisions is considered as necessary in order to formulate a valid assumption on the issue under examination.
In order to understand the law of adverse possession in relation with the land law, we should primarily refer to the specific term as it is used within the relevant legal texts in order to represent the acquisition of land with no legal title. In this context, it is stated that ‘adverse possession is the process by which a "squatter" becomes the legal owner of land by possessing it for a certain period of time, thereby dispossessing the "paper" owner of his title’ (Mace and Jones, 2007). The law of adverse possession has been differentiated through the years under the influence of changes in the legal and social context of Britain. It should be noticed that ‘prior to 2003, a squatter could obtain adverse possession if he demonstrated uninterrupted factual possession of the land and an intention to possess the land for a period of 12 years; however under the 2002 Act, the period of time a squatter is required to be in ...Show more