1. NUISANCE WITH REGARDS
TO MOBILE TOWERS AND
THE PROVISIONS UNDER
VARIOUS STATUTE
PRESENTED BY :
AISH MEHTA- 24
DHWANISH PATEL-29
BBA.LLB(HONS.)

2. WHAT IS NUISANCE?
 The word “nuisance” is derived from the French word “nuire”,
which means “to do hurt, or to annoy”. One in possession of
a property is entitled as per law to undisturbed enjoyment of it.
If someone else’s improper use in his property results into an
unlawful interference with his use or enjoyment of that
property or of some right over, or in connection with it, we may
say that tort of nuisance occurred. In other words, 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 result from an
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 a trespass.”

3. PUBLIC NUISANCE
 The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of
minor crimes that threaten the health, morals,
safety, comfort, convenience, or welfare of a
community. Violators may be punished by a criminal
sentence, a fine, or both.
 If the individual suffers harm that is different from
that suffered by the general public, the individual
may maintain a TORT ACTION for damages. For
example, if dynamiting has thrown a large boulder
onto a public highway, those who use the highway
cannot maintain a nuisance action for the
inconvenience. However, a motorist who is injured
from colliding with the boulder may bring a tort
action for personal injuries.

4. PRIVATE NUISANCE
 A private nuisance is an interference with a
person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law
recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful
possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired
condition of the property and to reasonable comfort
and convenience in its occupation.
 Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances
that interfere with the physical condition of the land
include vibration or blasting that damages a house;
destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the
pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water
supply.

5. NUISANCE WITH REGARD TO MOBILE
TOWERS
 Nuisance with regard to mobile towers are Public nuisance
because a public nuisance interferes with the public as a
class, not merely one person or a group of citizens.
 Recently Juhu housing society recently says that Mobile
phone towers are causing health problems.
 Radiation from mobile phone towers causes glioma, a type
of brain cancer, as reported by the committee before
the World Health Organisation. “The international agency for
research on cancer has also established that the mobile
phone towers are very powerful towers causing different
diseases to the persons residing within 50 metres of the
mobile towers.” The petition also submitted: “The radiation
values and norms in other countries are more stringent and
the exposure allowed is much lower but in our country there is
no specific rules and no norms for residential areas, schools,
offices, hospitals and playgrounds have been laid down to
stop radiation exposure.”

6. RELEVANT CASES:
 Jogi Ram vs R.R. Jowel And Ors on 7 October, 2013-The
petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition alleging
nuisance on account of mobile tower located in the residential
area and in the immediate vicinity of his house. It was his grievance
that this mobile tower would often run with the assistance of a
generator which created nuisance, air pollution and noise pollution.
This Court had directed the competent authority to look into the
grievance of the petitioner.
 In New Delhi - A mobile tower has become the bone of contention
between two neighbours. After a man complained that a mobile tower
and generator on the roof of his neighbour's house were creating
"nuisance and disturbance", a trial court has directed the landowner
to remove the tower and generator from his building. Refusing to
grant relief to the owner of the building, additional sessions judge T R
Naval upheld an executive magistrate's order for removal of the
tower and generator from there.

7. STEPS TAKEN DELHI HIGH COURT
TO REDUCE NUISANCE
 The Delhi High Court has taken a step towards reducing
the number of mobile phone towers in residential
buildings. A public interest litigation has been issued to
the Delhi government to bar the installation of mobile
phone towers on residential buildings. This move has
been made in the light of apprehensions that radiations
from these towers could be carcinogenic. A division
bench of Acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rajiv
Sahai Endlaw also issued notice to the health
ministry and the department of telecommunications.
They also sought their response by Aug 9, the next date
of hearing. The petition by A.S. Jain said that mobile
phone towers should not be installed on residential
buildings and at public places as recommended by the
report of an inter-ministerial committee headed by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh.