Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Environmental Laws > Constitutional and Statutory Provisions > Provisions Under Tort Law
The word “nuisance” is derived from the French word “nuire”, which means “to do hurt, or to annoy”. Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over, or in connection with it. Nuisance is an injury to the right of a person in possession of a property to undisturbed enjoyment of it and results from improper use by another person in his property. Stephen defined nuisance to be “anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements of another, and not amounting to trespass.” According to Salmond, “the wrong of nuisance consists in causing or allowing without lawful justification the escape of any deleterious thing from his land or from elsewhere into land in possession of the plaintiff, e.g. water, smoke, fumes, gas, noise, heat, vibration, electricity, disease, germs, animals”.
A nuisance may be categorized into Public Nuisance or Private Nuisance. As the name suggests, public nuisance deals with interference with a right pertaining to the public. Whereas, a private nuisance is an interference with the right which is exercised exclusively by a private entity or an individual.
In M.C. Mehta v. Kamalnath, (2000) 6 SCC 213 case, the Court opined that environmental pollution amounts to a tort committed against the community in general. The person guilty of causing environmental pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages, so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner.
In the Criminal Procedure Code, under Section 133 of CrPC, a magistrate is empowered to restrain any person from carrying out an act that may give effect to public nuisance.
In Ramlal v. Mustafabad Oil and Oil Ginning Factory, AIR 1968 P&H. 399 case, the Court observed that once a noise is found to be above the necessary threshold to attract the liability of public nuisance, it is no valid defense to contend that such noise arose out of any legal activity. Apart from this, public nuisance has been made punishable under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. (1961) 2 All ER 145, case, where the defendant’s factory caused high noise, emitted smokes, oil, fumes and smell and polluted the environment along with harming the plaintiff’s health because of his own sensitive health issue. An action was brought by the plaintiff for nuisance by acid smuts, smell and noise. The defendants were held liable to the plaintiff in respect of emission of acid smuts, noise or smell.
In Solatu V. De Held, (1851) 2 Sim NS 133 case, it was held that the continuous ringing of the bell of a Catholic church which is in a public way, accounts to Public Nuisance.
In Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal AIR 1982 All 285 case, the defendant had created a brick grinding machine adjoining to the premises of the plaintiff, who was a medical practitioner. The brick grinding machine-generated lots of dust, which in turn polluted the atmosphere. The dust that was generated due to the brick grinding machine entered the consulting chamber of the plaintiff and caused physical inconvenience to the plaintiff and his patients and a red coating on the clothes which was clearly visible. It was held that special damages were proved regarding the plaintiff and a permanent injunction was issued against the defendant which would restrain him from running his brick grinding machine there.
In Krishna Gopal Verma v. State of M.P. (1986) Cri LJ 396 case, the main issue raised was where one person has come forward to complain about nuisance can it be said that the nuisance complained of, is a public nuisance as contemplated by section 133 of the Cr. P.C. The Court held this argument fallacious and said; It is not the intent of the law that the community as a whole or a large number of complainants come forward to lodge their complaint or protest against the nuisance; that does not require any particular number of complainants. A mere reading of Section 133(1) would go to show that the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can be invoked on receiving a report of Police Officer or other information, and on taking such evidence if any, as he thinks fit. These words are important. Even on information received the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is empowered to take action in this behalf for either removal or regularizing a public nuisance.
The business of loading, unloading, and stocking of fodder near a residential locality was considered a serious health hazard by the Supreme Court in Ajeet Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) Cri LJ 1596, the main issue of the case was related to atmospheric pollution due to fine dust particles of the fodder. Endorsing the order of the magistrate for removal of the business from the locality, the Court observed: “It is very unfortunate that little care is now bestowed to the pollution problem and very lackadaisical approach is taken… very rarely people come forward and resist the same. They are normally discouraged on account of the slow-moving of the state machinery as well as the Court. But this is one of the unique cases in which the petitioner has taken the whole exercise ad brought the motion to put an end to this problem of pollution of that area.”
In State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. And Ors. AIR 2003 SC 3236 the Supreme Court defines the true scope of section 133 in controlling the environmental pollution.
In M Krishna Panicker v. Appukuttan Nair, 1993(10 KLJ 725 (DB) case the Kerala High Court held that the special law, the Water Act, did not repeal the law of public nuisance under the Cr. P.C. Special law overrides general law, only if, both operate on the same field. One relates to pollution control; the other refers to the maintenance of public order and tranquility. Pushing the aggrieved citizens to the board does not bring effective results, as the board has to put itself in the position of a complainant and seek remedies before a judicial magistrate. The Code provides a mechanism for a quick remedy against nuisance. The remedy under the law of public nuisance has now become feasible, functional and reachable to the common man.
In M/s. Nagarjuna Paper Mills Ltd. v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, 1987 Cri LJ 2071 case Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has not taken away powers of Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 133
In Venkatappa v. B. Louis AIR 1986 AP 239 the High Court upheld lower court’s order granting mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the holes in chimney facing the plaintiff’s property, as it affected the comfort of the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the plaintiff himself came to the nuisance, which was rejected by the Court.
In Kuldeep Singh v. Subhash Chandra Jain (2000) 2 SCALE 582 the Court held that a mere possibility of injury does not entitle the plaintiff to any relief.
Previous Topic: Fundamental Duties and Environmental Protection