The Shore Nuisances (Bombay and Kotaba) Act, 1853
The Shore Nuisances (Bombay and Kolaba) Act, 1853 (Act XI of 1853)
This Act was enacted during British rule to regulate nuisances and encroachments along the shores of Bombay and Kolaba islands. Its main purpose was to protect public interests by maintaining clean, navigable coastal areas and removing obstructions below the high-water mark.
1. Objective of the Act
The Act’s main objectives were:
Preventing obstruction in harbors: Ensuring the safety of navigation in Bombay harbor.
Environmental protection: Preventing public health hazards caused by waste, debris, or unauthorized constructions along the shore.
Regulation of encroachments: Controlling unauthorized occupation or use of land below the high-water mark.
In essence, it sought to maintain the shoreline as a public utility while giving government authorities the power to remove nuisances.
2. Key Provisions of the Act
a. Power to Remove Nuisances (Section 1)
The Collector of Land Revenue in Bombay could issue notices to remove any nuisance, obstruction, or encroachment below the high-water mark.
Notices had to be affixed near the nuisance and published publicly.
If not removed within one month, the Collector could act to remove it.
b. Petition Against Removal (Section 2)
Any person disputing the removal could petition the Supreme Court of Judicature at Bombay within one month.
The petitioner bore the burden of proving their right or claim.
The court could grant an injunction to temporarily restrain removal until the petition was resolved.
c. Collector’s Power to Remove (Section 3)
If no petition was filed or if the petition was dismissed, the Collector could proceed to remove the nuisance.
d. Sale of Materials (Section 4)
Materials resulting from removal (e.g., debris, structures) could be sold by the Collector.
Proceeds from the sale were to be deposited in the Government treasury.
e. Limitation on Petitions (Section 5)
Petitions could not be filed after one month unless a reasonable explanation for delay was given.
f. Preservation of Government Rights (Section 7)
The Act did not affect government ownership or other legal rights.
It did not limit civil or criminal remedies that existed independently.
g. Definition of ‘High-Water Mark’ (Section 8)
The “high-water mark” referred to the ordinary line of high-water at monsoon tides, which marked the boundary for the Act’s applicability.
3. Judicial Interpretation and Case Law
Although specific case law directly interpreting this Act is limited, courts have referred to it in matters related to government authority over shoreline encroachments.
Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Others
The court emphasized the government’s authority to remove encroachments below the high-water mark.
The judgment upheld that public interest in maintaining free access to shores overrides private claims.
Key principle: The Act gives administrative authority precedence over private rights when nuisances or obstructions affect navigation or public utility.
City of Bombay v. Narayan Bhatt (hypothetical reference to illustrate principles)
Courts recognized that even longstanding structures along the shore could be removed if they obstructed navigation or were deemed a nuisance.
The Act was interpreted as empowering the Collector to act proactively in public interest.
Legal principle from these interpretations:
The Act prioritizes public interest and government authority over individual property rights in matters affecting the shoreline.
It allows judicial review but limits it to one month, ensuring swift action.
4. Repeal and Legacy
The Act was eventually repealed by the Maharashtra Act No. 2 of 1921, but its principles influenced modern laws on:
Environmental protection
Coastal regulation
Public health safeguards along shorelines
It laid a foundation for later legislation such as:
The Water Pollution Act
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules
Laws governing public rights over riverbanks and coastal areas
5. Summary
The Act was a pioneering environmental and public health law in colonial India.
It empowered the Collector to remove nuisances and sell debris.
Petitions were allowed but strictly time-limited.
Courts recognized the public interest and navigational safety as paramount.
Its legacy continues in modern coastal and environmental legislation in India.
Key takeaway:
This Act balanced private claims against public utility, giving government authorities wide powers to maintain shorelines, with limited judicial oversight to protect individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments