TEJMAL PUNAMCHAND BURAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malkapur, in a proceeding u/ S. 133 of the Cr. P. C. i. e. for the removal of 'public Nuisance'.

(2.) THE terms "nuisance" as used in Law of Tort is not capable of exact definition. It has been used with meaning varying in extent by the old writers, and even at the present day there is no entire agreement whether certain acts or omissions shall be classified as 'nuisances' or whether they do not fall in any other divisions of the Law of Tort. The 'nuisances' may be broadly divided into; 1) Acts not warranted by Law or omissions to discharge a legal duty, which acts or omissions obstruct or cause inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all people; 2) Acts or omissions which have been designated or treated as nuisance by Statute; 3) Acts or omissions generally but not always or necessarily connected with the user or occupation of land which cause damage to another person in connection with the latter's user of land or interference with the enjoyment of land or of some right connected with the land. 'nuisances' may also be divided into those which are public, general or common, and those which are private. A Public Nuisance is one which inflicts damage, injury or inconvenience upon all the public in general or upon all of a class who come within the sphere or neighbourhood of its operation. A private nuisance is one which does not cause damage or inconvenience to the public at large, but which does interfere with a person's user or enjoyment of land or some right connected with the land.

(3.) IN order to constitute a nuisance there must be both (1) injuria, that is the wrongful act, and (2) damnum, that is, damage actual or presumed.