Not true. For instance: Kenyan victims of colonial torture win right to sue UK | CNN
People who were personally tortured in a modern legal environment are very different from nth generation descendents of people who lost out when the customary norms were very different.
If someone - e.g. an enslaved person - did work on a land to improve a property that they were never compensated for, why wouldn't they be entitled to a lien on that property just like any other worker who improves a property and isn't paid?
If they were still alive I agree they would be.
Their great great grandson shouldn't be though because we pretty much all have ancestors who were exploited one way or another by modern standards.
As a teenager my gran was basically forced to work in Germany (that or her younger siblings would starve with one more mouth to feed on meagre rations), and other male relatives were utilised as directly forced labour.
I don't believe I am due anything for that.
Why would that be incoherent? Certainly the span of time doesn't make it easy to gather evidence, but if wrongdoing can be established and an ill-gotten asset still exists, why shouldn't this be acted on?
Because all land is "ill gotten" multiple times.
If someone - e.g. a First Nations group - never consented to transfer of land, why shouldn't they be entitled to get that land back?
Why don't you give your house to the descendents of the traditional owners of the land?
It's immoral to keep stolen property you believe others are entitled to.