It isn't the crime of the century, best of luck to them I'd rather see some cabbages than a load of overgrown wasteland.
That is, I understand, the principle behind the actual legislation. If someone is putting in a bit of effort to do something with a piece of land, and the rightful owner isn't doing anything to contest that, after a certain period the person lokking after the land can acquire ownership.
Doen't the encroacher get to claim ownership if nobody objects for a certain period? If so it is an obvious risk for bits of land that might have a future railway use such as four-tracking or loops. Perhaps NR should (maybe even does) send a letter saying thay are happy for this use to continue subject to certain safety rules but they reserve the right to re-claim the land if needed for railway purposes?
The rules for adverse possession depend on if the land is registered or not. Longer delay for unregistered land, but for registered the original owner only has to object when you claim to have you seen off. I think in both cases you have to publicly act as if you are the owner of the land, and not be doing anything illegal.
That's correct. Owners have more protection if the land is registered, intentionally so as an incentive to register more land.
The point, however, remains. You would challenge someone occupying your land. Why should NR simply give their land up?
I can think of a couple! The piece of land in question might be insignificant. A pragmatic view might be that it isn't worth the bother or expense of evicting someone or fighting their application for ownership if the land has no real value for the owner.
NR might not even be aware of what happened. If the land is unregistered, the first they may know is if the receive notification of an application for first registration of that land. By which time they might not have a solid legal case for an objection to it.
They haven't given any land up, it's being used for a worthwhile purpose and if NR want it back they will simply flatten any cabbages and return it to overgrown rubbish and rat infested squalor which would please some people.
If I had left my garden in the state some NR land is in and somebody put it to good use then what's wrong with that, if I wanted it back I'd act accordingly.
If somebody built a house or some other structure on NR land that would be different, I wouldn't call growing a few vegetables an occupation.
You may not see it as occupation but in a legal sense it may well be. Nevertheless, it's down to NR as the owner of the land (assuming that they are) to decide if they want to protect the land or not. I agree with you that a lot of land adjacent to railway lines looks abandoned and uncared for, but that doesn't mean a lot in law.
The land is being occupied by someone other than the owner. They are depriving the rightful owner of the use of that land, regardless of what that use might be. It also doesn't matter what use the "illegal" occupier puts the land to. It isn't there land to use.
You are correct. When someone is occupying land that isn't theirs, no matter what the land is, was or will be used for, the onus is on the owner to protect their land and to evict those who are occupying it, or to ultimately lose those rights. It all dates back to the ancient notion that land is taken and held by strenght and occupation. We've moved on a bit from taking land by force of arms (or so I would hope), but the principle still applies.
Having dealt with similar cases before it is likely NR (if Railtrack are anything to go by) will seek to remove the "illegal" use of the land and where possible offer it to the occupier for sale or rent. For the occupier that is is preferable as they obtain a better class of title.
However, should the NR land be unregistered and the occupation, meeting certain criteria, has been for more than the required number of years the title to the land passes to the squatter free of charge.
Again that all sounds correct to me. It all depends on the circumstances and what NR decides to do. In this case, it's entirely possible that title has already passed to whoever extended their garden on a commercial basis. It's equally plausible that at some point the occupier claimed title through adverse possession.
