For questions 41-45

Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.

Rule B: Rights above the land extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.

Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have no reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable employment of his or her land.

Ramesh’s case: Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has traveled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh’s property. Ramesh files a case claiming  that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.

Applying only Rule A to Ramesh’s case, as a judge you would decide:

•  In favour of the Government of India because the transgression was at a height at which Ramesh could not possibly have any use for.

•  That ownership of land does not mean that the owner’s right extends infinitely into space above the land.

• In favour of Ramesh because he has the right to infinite space above the land he owns.

• In favour of Ramesh because he has the right to infinite space above the land he owns.

Shazia’s case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three storey houses on either side of Shazia’s house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad’s main distributors for a major soft drinks company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia’s house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons. 

Applying only Rule B to Shazia’s case, you would decide in favour of:

• Javed and Sandeep because Shazia can easily hoist a flag below 70 feet.

•  Shazia because she has the right to put her land to any use and the court cannot go into her intentions for hoisting a flag at 75 feet.

•  Shazia because she has the absolute right to space above her land.

•  Shazia because she has the absolute right to space above her land.

Applying only Rules A and B to Shazia’s case, you would decide:

•  In favour of Shazia only under Rule A.

•  In favour of Shazia under Rule A as well as B.

• Against Shazia under Rule B.

• Against Shazia under Rule B.

44.

Applying only Rule B and C to Ramesh’s case, you would decide:

•  In favour of Ramesh only under Rule B.

•  In favour of Ramesh under Rule B as well as C.

• Against Ramesh under Rule C.

• Against Ramesh under Rule C.

Applying Rule C to Shazia’s case, you would decide:

•  In her favour because hoisting a 75 feet high flag is reasonable.

•  Against her because a 75 feet high flag is not reasonable.

• Against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land.

• Against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land.