| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1428 2026 SLD 1428 = 2026 PLJ 1 |
Peshawar High Court
W.P. No. 6589-P of 2019, decided on 26.5.2025.
Presented By: Syed Arshad Ali, J.
Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Mohsin Khan, Advocate for
Respondents. Mr. Mazhar Ali Khan, Research & Reference Officer. Date of hearing: 26.5.2025.
W.P. No. 6589-P of 2019, decided on 26.5.2025.
Presented By: Syed Arshad Ali, J.
Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Mohsin Khan, Advocate for
Respondents. Mr. Mazhar Ali Khan, Research & Reference Officer. Date of hearing: 26.5.2025.
AYAZ KHAN--Petitioner
VERSUS
SANAULLAH and others--Respondents
Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, (XXXVIII of 2014)
Section: 13
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 54,55
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
PLJ 2026 Peshawar 1 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014 (XXXVIII of 2014)-- ----S. 13--Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877), Ss. 54 & 55--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199-- Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction--Dismissed--Appeal--Dismissed--Private nuisance--Noise & vibration--Residential life--Installation of power 100m without getting NOC--Mental & physical distress-- Since central issue in present case revolved around allegation of nuisance attributed to respondents, it is pertinent to first understand legal contours of term “nuisance.” Lord Neuberger lucidly defined concept of nuisance as an act, or, in some cases, an omission that, though not otherwise legally justified, and results in an unreasonable interference with another’s lawful enjoyment of their property--This interference must be substantial and beyond what could be considered acceptable in light of ordinary use and enjoyment of land--Nuisance, by its very nature, did not require underlying act to be unlawful; what matters is consequence of that act whether it causes substantial discomfort, inconvenience, or harm to another--Activities such as constant noise, mechanical vibrations, or other industrial disruptions introduced into a residential setting go beyond what is reasonably tolerable by ordinary members of society--When use of one’s property starts to intrude upon comfort and well-being of others, particularly in their homes, law steps in to strike a balance--It is not necessary for affected person to show physical damage, interference with mental peace and ordinary enjoyment of property is sufficient--It is well settled that private nuisance did not require harm to be widespread or felt by many; a single individual’s discomfort, if substantial and persistent, is sufficient to constitute a private nuisance--Running industrial or commercial operations in residential precincts not only disrupts private life of inhabitants but also poses significant environmental concerns with lasting implications--Unchecked establishment of power looms without prior environmental clearance from relevant regulatory authorities, as…