What is arbitrary occupation of a plot of land and is everything always so clear?

Under what conditions is the use of a plot of land without documents drawn up for it not considered self-employment? According to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On State Control of the Use and Protection of Land", arbitrary occupation of a land plot is any action that indicates the actual use of a land plot in the absence of a corresponding decision of the executive authority or local self-government body on its transfer to ownership or provision for use (lease) or in the absence of a completed deed regarding such a plot of land, with the exception of actions that are lawful in accordance with the law. That is, in accordance with the requirements of the legislation, a mandatory condition for the actual use of the land plot is the presence of the person using it, title documents for this land plot, and the absence of such documents may indicate arbitrary occupation of the land plot. The key word is "can". In deciding the issue of applying responsibility for the arbitrary occupation of a land plot, the courts proceed from the fact that the actual use of a land plot without documents certifying the right to it, in itself, is not a sufficient basis for qualifying such use of a land plot as its arbitrary occupation. Therefore, when resolving such disputes, the courts resort to research, in particular, whether a person has the right to receive a plot of land for ownership or use, taking measures for the registration of the right to a plot of land, etc. Therefore, arbitrary occupation of a land plot, according to the courts, is different from using a land plot in the absence of properly executed documents for it. This is the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court as part of the chamber for consideration of cases concerning land relations and property rights of the Cassation Economic Court in case No. 910/22093/17 dated 01.21.2019. Similar legal positions are also stated in the resolutions of the Higher Economic Court of Ukraine dated 27.11. .2014 in case No. 5011-73/8027-2012 and dated 10.05.2017 in case No. 910/18559/16, according to which, the actual use of a land plot without legal documents is not a sufficient basis for recognizing such use of land areas for self-employment. In case No. 910/22093/17, the court of cassation, having supported the decision of the courts of previous instances, which reasonably refused to satisfy the claims stated in this resolution (https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/79590296), left the cassation the plaintiff's complaint without satisfaction. Refusing the plaintiff to satisfy the stated requirements, the courts of previous instances found that the reason for the defendant's use of the land plot is his acquisition and registration of the ownership right to real estate. That is, the defendant has the right to the land plot located under the premises, but he cannot exercise his legal right to purchase the land plot or use it due to the fault of the plaintiff. The courts came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that the defendant has taken measures to register the disputed land plot and that he does not have title deeds to the land plot reissued in his name, the use of this land plot is not a basis for applying to him the provisions of Article 212 of the Land Code of Ukraine ( "Return of arbitrarily occupied land plots"). An important point in this case No. 910/22093/17 is that, for some reason, a forensic land-technical examination was not conducted in it, which could serve as a proper proof of the defendant's claims or arguments. Thus, the Supreme Court noted in its decision that, as can be seen from the content of the statement of claim, the plaintiff appealed to the court with a demand for the defendant's obligation to vacate the arbitrarily occupied land plot and return it to the plaintiff, bringing it into a usable condition by freeing the buildings and buildings In substantiating the claims, the plaintiff referred to the act of surveying the land plot. In the said act, it is stated that during the inspection, it was established that a road (street) is located on part of the land plot, while the other part of the land plot is partially fenced, guarded, and on it are located buildings and structures that are allegedly privately owned by the defendant. However, from this act of surveying the land plot, which the plaintiff refers to in support of his claims, it is not clear that the buildings belonging to the defendant are located exactly on a specific part of the land plot, and it is also not clear that the real estate specified in the survey act belongs to precisely to the defendant. At the same time, the court draws attention to the following. According to the content of Article 79 of the Land Code of Ukraine, a land plot is a part of the earth's surface with established boundaries, a certain location, and defined rights in relation to it. Under the location is a certain location of the object in space. For a land plot, such a location is determined by its coordinates of the turning points of the boundaries that form the land plot, in reference to the existing geodetic boundary. However, when applying for the defendant's obligation to vacate the arbitrarily occupied land plot, the plaintiff did not prove the actual boundaries of such a land plot with its exact coordinates, exact location and exact size, which makes it impossible to draw a conclusion about the arbitrary occupation of a specific land plot or part of it. In addition, it can be seen from the content of the act of surveying the land plot and the act of verifying compliance with the requirements of the land legislation that the appendix is ​​a plan-scheme, but it was absent in the case. In accordance with procedural codes, an expert's opinion is a separate type of evidence, on the basis of which the court establishes the presence or absence of circumstances (facts) justifying the claims and objections of the participants in the case, and other circumstances that are important for the resolution of the case. Why a forensic land-technical examination was not conducted in this case remains a mystery. A forensic examination would be able to establish all the necessary circumstances about the actual location, configuration and dimensions of the borders of the land plot (including the coordinates of their turning points), relative location relative to the boundaries of buildings and structures on the land plot, etc., which would allow the court to conclude that there is or the absence of arbitrary occupation of a specific land plot or its part. In addition, within the framework of a judicial construction and technical examination, it is possible to establish whether the buildings and structures located on the specified plot of land are real estate objects belonging to a specific person.