Encroachment Dispute and Mandatory Demolition Upheld

A party, having been ordered by a lower court to pay damages for the unauthorized construction of a retaining wall that encroached upon a neighbor's property, appealed the decision, arguing that the construction was necessary for the preservation of their own land and that the immediate remedy of demolition was unduly harsh. The high court upheld the lower court's ruling, reasoning that the right to property confers the right to demand the cessation of any unlawful encroachment, and the fact that the construction served a useful purpose for the constructor does not negate the prejudice suffered by the owner whose land has been illegally occupied, thus justifying the order for removal.