why right to own a piece of cultivable/residential land is not considered a fundamental right?

Question

might was right and there was ancient/savage being who owned everything. then came modern age. mightiest was the king till we became more civilised to be subservient to king by descent. yesterdays decoits are the land lords and develop a system of their choice.the land belongs to all one of us why some of us be deprieved from owning a piece of land.can we be more civilised to undue wrongs perpetred by the ancestors.there is no merit/talens in holding 95 % of the land by a chosen few. land reforms globally is a must. let's start from this land of snakes and cows and pilot babas now.

Answer 1

We have the fundamental right to initiate creation of laws that qualify our rights to own/manage land in ways we sometimes
find wrong or offensive. We also have the right to legally change or remove those laws. I think the key is identifying
the laws you want to change and collecting a majority of support; politically and financially for the cause. Good luck.
It's still doable; just a little trickier as what we do gets more and more complex.

Answer 2

this is discussed at length in John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government".

Locke's argument is that it is the work of improving the land that separates it from the common ownership of all humanity and makes it into private property.

This flows naturally from the notion that every man has absolute ownership of his time and labor. [If he does not he is a slave.]

One couples this to the observation that, in the beginning, there were many very similar plots of land available and that the reduction of ther entire land by one plot which someone improved did not diminish the opportunity for others to similarly take and improve one for themselves.

Today, of course, humanity has become so populous that all of the earth is owned by someone or some collective body, each of which has improved his/its/their plot in some way or other.

The land does NOT 'belong to all of us' any longer, for in order to take it back, you would also have to seize the improvements that individuals and their ancestors have made upon it -- which would be some absolutist form of government asserting that it has more rights than individual people -- in which case, you are all but a slave in name.

Some of the classics have great value.

:-)