It's a puff of logic in either circumstance:
If he's wrong, he never had exclusive rights to public land in the first place and it was not his to lose.
If he's right, he obviously did not suffer the loss of the value of that property.
If he's wrong, he never had exclusive rights to public land in the first place and it was not his to lose.
If he's right, he obviously did not suffer the loss of the value of that property.
If he had lost the case, he would have suffered a financial loss, but having lost cannot recover it from the "trespassers".