Browse by Stream
QnA
Home
QnA
Go To Your Study Dashboard

Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa
  • Home
  • Law
  • Read the following passage and the question. The tort of trespass can be defined as an unjustifiable physical interference of land in the possession of one party by anoth

Read the following passage and the question.

The tort of trespass can be defined as an unjustifiable physical interference of land in the possession of one party by another. The tort of trespass requires essentially only the possession of land by the plaintiff and just encroachment in some way by the defendant. There requires no force, unlawful intention, or damage nor the breaking of an enclosure. The express mention of the word interference is mainly there to imply permission. Permission to encroach onto one’s land can either be obtained by the person in possession or under authority. One of the most important ingredients of a tort of trespass is the fact that the land in question which has been encroached upon essentially needs to be in the direct possession of the plaintiff and not just mere physical presence on it. Another essential provision of the tort of trespass includes the directness of the act. If the act is direct i.e. arising out of the natural consequences of the act of the defendant then it is valid. If the consequences of the act are a result of a remote effect of an act then it is not held to be a valid suit. Trespass, be it against a human or his property, needs to establish the fact that there was a common goal i.e. the objective is that there needs to be an intervention with the person's right to retain land or the fact of maintaining a right to personal dignity. 
The tort of trespass can be safely segregated into two halves which are Criminal trespass and trespass to land or property. The principle in the cases of both is the same i.e. there should be a wrongful interference. In the case of Land trespass, it is to be noted that though everyone has a right to the enjoyment of property one cannot sue for aerial trespass if the trespass is such that it doesn't clash with the ordinary enjoyment of Land. Furthermore, in the case of land, it is to be seen if the act is direct or indirect i.e. if the trespass is not the natural consequence of the act done. Then the tort does not apply. Mistake or ignorance is not a remedy to trespass.

Question - The municipal corporation had constructed a bridge and to support the infrastructure they erected buttresses on Sunita’s land and after completion of work did not remove them

Option: 1

   The authorities were not liable to pay compensation


Option: 2

There can be no action against government bodies

 


Option: 3

The authorities are not liable because this is public welfare work and some inconvenience to the public cannot be held liable for action


Option: 4

The authorities were liable to pay full compensation and had a further action in continuing trespass in which they were held liable

 


Answers (1)

best_answer

In Homes V. Wilson, the authorities had constructed a road/bridge. They erected buttresses on the plaintiff’s land to support such infrastructure and had not removed them. The authorities were liable to pay full compensation and had further action in continuing trespass in which they were held liable. In continuing trespass, encroachment remains until such object or act is either removed or stopped.

 

 

Posted by

avinash.dongre

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Hearing LIVE: Delhi HC seeks response from Consortium in 2 weeks; next hearing on April 7
anam-khan

CLAT PG counselling 2025 dates soon for LLM; category-wise expected cut-offs for top NLUs
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 counselling likely to begin after Delhi HC hearing on March 3; selection process explained

Latest Question