A bona fide purchaser who is unaware of the usurped nature of the property may suffer substantial losses if traditional rules of usurpation are strictly applied. This issue becomes particularly critical when the purchaser has constructed improvements on the land. In such cases, if the landowner insists on the demolition of the structures and the resulting damages exceed the value of the land, judges seek solutions to reconcile the conflicting rights of both parties. Some of these solutions are reflected in judicial rulings. One such approach is the ruling on “involuntary co-ownership” of the land and improvements by both owners. This ruling is primarily based on economic considerations and aims to prevent excessive harm to the bona fide purchaser. In this study, through a descriptive and analytical approach and using a library-based research method, we critically examine Judgment No. 9909970221502339, dated 1399/10/27 (January 16, 2021), issued by Branch 15 of the Court of Appeal of Tehran Province. This judgment, which is based on the doctrine of “involuntary co-ownership” between the landowner and the owner of improvements, introduces a novel perspective on the legal consequences of usurpation and subsequent acts of possession and examines the challenges faced by the legal and judicial community of the country in this regard. Given the explicit views of Imami jurists and Iranian legal texts regarding usurpation, as well as the necessity of maintaining social order, issuing a ruling on “involuntary co-ownership” between the landowner and the usurper remains highly contentious. Therefore, ultimately, a judgment based on the Institution of “Waste in law” (talaf-e hokmi)—which has also been endorsed in certain judicial rulings—appears to be the more justified legal solution.