The evidence provided for this claim consists only of general dictionary and Wikipedia entries regarding the term 'Section' or 'Section sign' and does not contain the constitutional text of Section 25(1) of the South African Constitution. Therefore, the claim cannot be verified or corroborated using the provided evidence.

The evidence confirms that the original PIE Act exists and that proposed changes aim to address issues related to evictions and illegal occupations. However, none of the provided sources explicitly state that the *original* Act 'inadvertently facilitated the arbitrary deprivation of property by allowing bad-faith occupiers to remain on land for indefinite periods.' This specific assertion is presented as background context within the claim itself, lacking direct corroboration from the search results.

The claim that the amended bill requires courts to examine the intentions of the unlawful occupier and the impact of the occupation on the community is mentioned in the context of the Minister's briefing, but this specific requirement is not independently corroborated by a second source. The evidence suggests this is a key feature being highlighted by proponents of the bill.

The claim regarding judicial findings that an occupier's wishes are not a valid basis to refuse eviction is mentioned in the context of the bill's purpose, but no independent source or secondary legal commentary corroborates this specific judicial finding.