Legal Principle : An unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff “came to the nuisance” by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity ofthe defendant’s premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes. Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an averageof 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000. The MoD denied liability and raised defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannotclaim compensation as he already knew about existence of RAF Wittering near his property.

Question

Legal Principle : An unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff “came to the nuisance” by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity ofthe defendant’s premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.   Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an averageof 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000.  The MoD denied liability and raised defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannotclaim compensation as he already knew about existence of RAF Wittering near his property.

Examsnet · Accepted Answer

Correct Answer is : The Harrier training is not an ordinary use of land and that although there was a public benefit to the continued training of Harrier pilots, D should not be required to bear the cost of the public benefit

AILET 2017 BA LLB Question Paper

More Free Exams: