Disruptions to adverse possession

Adverse Possession has long been a quirk of Eng Land Law whereby the doctrine is based on the principle that regardless of formal/documentary record of ownership,uncontested long use of land must ultimately confer good title upon the adverse possessor.The doctrine has been firmly entrenched in the common law&only recently there has been ques as to it correctly. 

Justifications for Adverse Possession:||Despite many arguments against the doctrine, adverse possession can be justified. In legal terms  of legal process, adverse possession is an expression of a policy that denies legal assistance to those who sleep on their rights. It also ensures that there is an end to disputes concerning land.Also, since land is a finite resource, adverse possession can help to ensure the full utilisation of land in the country. ||As such we see that the doctrine is not entirely without merit. However for many, the disadvantages of the doctrine far outweigh the benefits&this has resulted in numerous calls for reform throughout the years culminating in the LRA02. ||Neuberger J in Pye v Graham gives his reasons why AP is no longer acceptable in a modern legal system.He states that the doctrine is both illogical&disproportionate.Illogical because the only reason the owner can be said to have sat on his rights is because of the existence of the 12 years limitation period in the first place,if it didn't exist, the owner can claim for his land anytime. Disproportionate because, it seems draconian to the owner&owner&a windfall to the squatter that just because the owner has taken no steps to evict the squatter for 12 years, the owner should lose the land with no compensation whatsoever.||Also it must be noted that the rules on AP were developed at a time when there was no system of registration in place&title was relative.It has no place in a system where title is absolute&dp  on registration.The procedural issues with the doctrine undermined the mirror principle,one of the underlying principles of the system of registration. ||Apart from the substrative arguments against the doctrine, there were procedural arguments as well.There was no notice requirements before AP occurs.The AP may quietly obtain the land upon the passing of 12 years&the actual owner has no remedy against the AP S.75 of the LRA 1925 imposes a constructive trust on the land with the AP as the beneficiary.This will not be reflected on the register thus a 3rd party purchaser will have no way of knowing this.Further, s.70(1)(f)of the LRA 1925 also provides