Question

Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. 

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 of the 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 average of 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 the 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 cannot claim compensation as he already knew about the existence of RAF Wittering near his property.
Decision:

विकल्प

• D is not entitled to compensation as the training of pilots is a public welfare activity.

• 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.  

• D is not entitled to compensation as his property is two miles away from the training base.

• D will not get compensation as the training activity does not amount to nuisance and D had full knowledge about the training activities when he purchased the land.  

Answer 1

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.  

Explanation:

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. There was an unlawful interference with D's use of land which is a nuisance in tort. MoD cannot deny liability because D had bought the property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established and was aware of their existence. This act is not imperatively demanded by public convenience.