Reply #105: Right...this is exacly why your analogy does not fit...

[Bono71]

and by the way, Adverse Posession cases in the United States (currently) have very little to do with an economic benefit derived from "working" the land...it has more to do with settling boundary disputes...plus it is an action between private parties with zero government involvement (I have a law degree, so I know what adverse possession is, I have even claimed title on some portions of development projects through AP)...

What you have here is the government taking land (know what a "taking" is?) and redistributing it to poor people (this is VERY MUCH LIKE EMINENT DOMAIN, if it isn't outright eminent domain)...you have the government condemning land and redistributing it (I don't think you get this)...again I don't have a problem with this, per se...however, I would like to know more about the rights of title holders involved...can they appeal the decisions about what compensation is given (like in the good ole USA)? What is the compensation model (is it the "highest and best use" like the good ole USA)?