Question

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance

Facts: 
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?

विकल्प

• The loss caused by the construction of new ferry terminals could not amount to a private nuisance at law since they did not possess any private rights which enabled them to insist on any particular depth of water.

• The loss caused by the construction of new ferry terminals amounts to a private nuisance at law since they did possess right to use the water at a particular depth.

• No, it cannot constitute private nuisance but the claimants can claim damages for loss suffered by them.

• Yes, the State’s conduct was unreasonable in building the new terminals without thinking of all the consequences it would have on the rights of other parties. 

Answer 1

The loss caused by the construction of new ferry terminals could not amount to a private nuisance at law since they did not possess any private rights which enabled them to insist on any particular depth of water.

Explanation:

This would not come under the scope of a private  nuisance because Bharat Sugar Ltd has no private right over the land/water over which the State constructed new ferry terminals. The State is not liable because it has not created a nuisance in the first place according to the principle which states private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land or of some right over or in connection with it.