private property owners property for road riding a project and the government's refusal to pay just compensation under the constitution and continuing to refuse to pay just compensation developing various theories as to why  not own the property and number two this case is about a property owner who can accordance with the correct legal standard proof beyond any reasonable doubt that it owns the additional property that was  respectfully request and prays that this court one reverses the decision of the trial court ruling in favor of baghdad and against the property owner and to hold that to tara proved it is the owner of the property the additional property in this case in accordance with the correct legal standard and was not applied and three that this court order the trial court to enter an order of main damus requiring i that to pay just compensation for the additional property that it took on the his request are one the trial court simply did not apply the correct legal standard beagle standard that this court set forth in the ritz decision court for guards to resolving a dispute about the legal description of property and ownership been court applied to correct legal standard the application of that rule for the words contain in the lead in the deep they'll be the description itself revealed that the northeast property line for the entire property is five hundred  eleven is the north east of the northeast line of route one thirteen in braidwood illinois the legal description in new deed revealed that the south east property line is two hundred feet south east of the cent two that are contiguous cheryl to those are the property line according to the legal description in this particular case it started in two thousand and four i doubt its surveyor running haagen started his survey w he went out to various copies in bridge work with regard to this rogue widely project what he did was he state he left markings on various properties that were going to be part of the taking for the road widening project shortly after that in two thousand five hundred completed his plan a highway plan of how is not a survey it just shows the right of way and the properties from which probably will be taken to widen the roads in this particular case the subject property is at the corner of thirteen and route fifty three from the big indulgence of the court route one thirteen is also called main street and route one it route fifty three is also called front street i'm going to try to just use route one thirteen raw fifty three  feet north east of the ne line of route one thirteen and he's had a highly shows that the properties se property line is two hundred feet southeast of the center line of the railroad tracks his splat shows that in area comprising of one hundred seventy five feet by twenty five feet the northeast part of the property is not part of could power is property feet so we're talking about almost an end zone sallies strick which is at the back of this property which by the way there were twelve eleven parking spaces in that area and then there were some landscaping right along route fifty three and  parcel to from the prior owners of the estate of dorothy tested it close on the purchase in two thousand and five at the close it could par received a survey prepared by joseph it's an all to survey certified parcels to individuals between nine hundred seventy five and i believe in been than one hundred but they started disposing of one so the legal description is contained in the survey and reason why that's important is because the plaque which we correctly cited in our brief states most importantly it one of the elements of a valid dedication would be that it has the record so two hundred feet south east of the center line of a railroad track which they also said was the route fifty three right of way along and then said the other one is the line that is the center line of vacated no street east side where those houses on both sides but there is no street so there is no monument