1. I am not trying to tell you that you are misinformed, rather I tell you that you are misinformed. You are ignorant about the procedural law as well as the procedure of superintendence exercised by the higher courts over the lower courts. Even a mighty corrupt judge would pass his order in a manner so as to ensure that the higher court is not, in exercise of its power of judicial superintendence, able to detect the taint of corruption as demonstrable in the judgment itself. I am not prepared to believe that the judge gave a ready made judgment to your opponent without following the bare minimum requirements of law. Having seen corrupt judges and how they function, trust me, there are better ways to do this. The judgment of the court may be erroneous, but this does not lead to a presumption that it was actuated by corruption. We come across scores of flawed judgments everyday but the flaw is attributable to the incompetence of the judges of the lower courts and not corruption. Did you see the judge of the lower court being bribed? If the answer is no, there is a presumption that the judgment did not stem out of any extraneous considerations. No litigant has ever emerged victorious in the higher courts by making unsubstantiated allegations against judges. You will not be an exception either.
2. You are misinterpreting the expression 'proof'. Any practising lawyer would inform you that the word 'proof' does not exist in the procedural law which governs us. You should understand how 'proof' is submitted and when the liability to adduce it stands dispensed. If there was an act by you either during the proceedings in the court or at anytime before the institution of the case, whereby and whereunder you waived your complete or part of legal claim, the liability of your opponent to adduce proof was no longer indispensable. So if at all the judge passed the verdict without asking him to prove his claim (as you have put it) there is a fair possibility that the liability to prove the claim, sought to have been proved by him, may have been discharged due to a positive or negative act done by you before the filing of or during the case. Be that as it may, I am not saying the judgment does not suffer from the vice of legal infirmities, Your lawyer, who has the privilege of having all the case related documents before him, is in the best position to apply his legal mind to guide you as to the further legal recourse.
3. Does the law to which your property is subject, mandate a construction of a particular nature within a specified time? What are the legal consequences mandated by the law for failure to obey the notice? What is the time which had elapsed from the last day to obey the notice and the filing of the case? Questions like these cannot be answered in black and white unless one is cognizant of the complete background.
4. You are free to file a police complaint for criminal intimidation against those who threaten you.
5. The tactic of contesting the case to bring the MP to the negotiating table may or may not work. It does not apply across the board in all cases at all times as some individuals are chronic litigants.
6. It is good for you that you got a lawyer who is within the reach of your affordability, albeit it is illegal for a lawyer to either take his fee as a percentage of the decree amount, or to make his fee contingent on the result of the case.
7. Please do not leave your number here as the rules of Bar Council of India forbid a lawyer to solicit legal work. For a lawyer to contact a litigant, who is not his client, would be an act which would amount to solicitation of legal work, albeit you are free to contact any lawyer. It would be unethical for a lawyer to call you unless of course he takes up your case pro bono.
I do however, wish you all the best!