Your good sentiments are misplaced on this factual situation. There is no corruption or usurpation of power here — just a routine and apparently very well founded adverse possession case.
Then on that we will disagree. Adverse possession requires more than simple occasional use, as any other I have seen (few) have shown -- some type of improvement, open and continuous use, abandonment of the property and none-payment of taxes, repetitive failure to act for a known intrusion. None of those occurred in this case. Taxes were paid, they walked their property several times a year, they made known their intentions at purchase and thereafter to build in the future.
There might be a case for an easement, but not possession.
This was a bad judgment as a payoff to some party hacks.