Question

Principle: Doing of an act which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to public or which is likely to cause such injury or annoyance is Public nuisance. A common nuisance is not excused because it causes some nuisance or advantage.
Facts: ‘A’ a farmer having large farmlands burns crop residue (stubble) on his fields after harvesting the crop to make the field ready for next crop as this is the easy, fast and convenient method of making the field ready for next crop. His farmlands are adjoining a densely inhabited residential area and people pass through the smoke while travelling on the road adjoining his farmlands. The smoke caused by fire also enters the houses in the colony.

• A. A has not committed any offence since he does not cause any specific injury to any specific person.
• B. A has not committed any offence because he does not gain any advantage from persons living in the vicinity.
• C. A has committed public nuisance.
• D. A has not committed any offence because the alleged acts are done on the fields owned and used by him and acts are done without any intention to cause harm.

Hint:

Public nuisance requires that the act causes specific harm, danger, or annoyance to the general public rather than to any particular individual.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The principle of public nuisance applies when an action causes injury, harm, or annoyance to the public at large. In this case, A is burning crop residue on his farmlands, which causes smoke. While the smoke may affect the people passing through the adjoining road and even enter houses in the colony, it does not cause any specific injury or harm to any specific individual. The action is not directed at any particular person but affects the general public. Therefore, the action does not constitute a public nuisance according to the principle provided.
Thus, the correct answer is (A).
Option (B) is incorrect because whether or not A gains any advantage from people passing by does not determine whether the act constitutes a public nuisance. Option (C) is incorrect because the action does not amount to public nuisance based on the given facts. Option (D) is incorrect because the fact that the acts are done on his land does not automatically justify the act if it causes public nuisance.

Answer 2

This question asks whether smoke drifting from stubble burning into a residential colony amounts to public nuisance, even though the farmer has a practical reason for burning the residue. Let's weigh each option against the given principle.

1. A has not committed any offence, since he does not cause any specific injury to any specific person: Public nuisance, by definition, does not require injury to one identifiable person. The whole point of the principle is that it protects the public at large, people passing on the road and residents in the colony, rather than requiring proof that one particular individual was singled out and harmed.
2. A has not committed any offence, because he does not gain any advantage from the people living nearby: Whether A gains anything from his neighbours has no bearing on the offence. The principle only asks whether the act causes common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public, which the smoke entering the colony's houses and drifting over the road clearly does.
3. A has committed public nuisance: The smoke from A's burning spreads into a densely inhabited residential area, reaches people travelling on the adjoining road, and enters houses in the colony. This is exactly the common annoyance to the public that the principle describes, and the principle also makes clear that such conduct is not excused just because it is a convenient or easy method for A.
4. A has not committed any offence, because the acts are done on his own fields without intent to cause harm: Doing the act on one's own land, or without meaning to bother anyone, does not remove it from the reach of the principle. Public nuisance looks at the effect the act has on the public, and here that effect, smoke reaching a residential area, is squarely present regardless of where the fire was lit or what A intended.

Since the smoke causes common annoyance to people on the road and in the colony, and the principle expressly says a common nuisance is not excused merely because it is convenient for the person causing it, A's stubble burning fits the definition of public nuisance.

So the correct answer is A has committed public nuisance.

Answer 3

Each wrong option here tries to attach a requirement to public nuisance that the principle does not actually impose. Spotting the invented requirement in each option resolves the question quickly.

1. Not an offence, since no specific individual is injured: This option invents a requirement that public nuisance needs one identifiable victim, but the principle is built around harm to the public generally, people on the road and residents of the colony, not a single named person.
2. Not an offence, since A gains no advantage from his neighbours: This option invents a requirement about the relationship between the parties, but the principle asks only whether the act causes common injury, danger, or annoyance, which has nothing to do with any advantage A does or does not draw from his neighbours.
3. A has committed public nuisance: This option imposes no invented requirement at all; it applies the principle as written, smoke reaching a residential colony and a public road is common annoyance to the public, and the principle expressly says convenience for the person causing it is no excuse.
4. Not an offence, since done on his own land without intent to harm: This option invents a requirement about location of the act and intention behind it, but the principle looks at the effect on the public, not at whose land the act happened on or whether harm was intended.

Since none of the requirements the wrong options invent, a named victim, mutual advantage, or absence of intent, actually appear in the principle, and the smoke's effect on the public plainly does, A's conduct fits public nuisance.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has committed public nuisance.