Justice in this case is preserved through the court’s adherence to fundamental legal principles that ensure fairness, legality, and proper authority. The court ensures that actions taken by public authorities are within their legal powers, and any acts found to be ultra vires are declared void from the outset, preventing unlawful deprivation of property. The court emphasizes that administrative acts must be based on law and proper procedure, safeguarding individuals’ property rights against unlawful government actions [judgement_subject] (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court upholds the principle that statutes and constitutional provisions protect property rights, ensuring that any deprivation of property must be in accordance with law. It recognizes that acts contrary to legal authority or beyond statutory powers are invalid, thus preventing arbitrary or unjust administrative decisions (!) (!) .

The court also maintains fairness by rejecting defenses such as estoppel when they are used to legitimize acts that are inherently unlawful or ultra vires. It clarifies that equitable doctrines cannot override legal limits and that public authorities cannot invoke estoppel to justify exceeding their powers (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Additionally, the court considers limitation statutes but concludes that they do not apply where the act was ultra vires and void from the beginning. This ensures that legal remedies are not barred when the underlying act was unlawful, thus providing a remedy for injustice (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Overall, justice is preserved through rigorous application of the law, ensuring that only lawful acts are recognized and that unlawful acts are nullified, thereby protecting individual rights and maintaining the rule of law.