It is established that the association of hunting friends rejected the allegation of occupation and provided the authorization of to hunting in the said private area delivered by the regional office of water and forests. It objected also that the legal expert conclusions did not delimit precisely the harm. Therefore the court’s decision was not well founded when deciding the compensation without taking into consideration documents provided by the defendant that would have shown its wrong, and without explaining in its justification the kind of harm occurred to the land subject of litigation in the assessment of compensation.

Decision overruled