In a recent case, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has allowed a resident of Budgam district in Kashmir to open the windows of his house, which had been restrained by a civil court over five years ago based on his neighbor's claim. The civil court had upheld the neighbor's claim that the opening of windows towards his property would infringe upon his privacy.
However, the High Court has now ruled that the civil court's order failed to reflect how and what right of the petitioner’s neighbor was being violated and that the petitioner has a right to open windows on his property even if they are facing towards the neighbor's house.
The High Court has also rejected the contention of the respondents that opening the windows would infringe upon their privacy, stating that it is an issue for the defendant/respondent to take necessary steps to ensure their own privacy. The Court has suggested that the neighbor can protect his privacy by placing curtains on their windows or by raising a wall on their property, which would make their house invisible from the property of the petitioner.
The case originated from a civil suit filed by the neighbor against the petitioner, where three issues were raised before the civil court. The neighbor claimed that the sloping roof of the petitioner's then under-construction house would fall toward his house and snow would come cascading down into his property.
The neighbor was also aggrieved that drain pipes were positioned by the petitioner in such a manner that the water would flow on their property and weaken the soil. The third issue was that opening of windows towards the property of the neighbor would infringe upon his privacy.
The trial court had partly allowed an application filed for interim orders in 2018, permitting the petitioner from continuing with the construction but restraining him from opening the windows facing the neighbor’s house. The trial court had also directed the petitioner to ensure that the roof is constructed in such a manner that snow does not fall on the property of the neighbor and to place the pipes in such a manner that water does not fall into the property of the neighbor.
In the High Court, the petitioner argued that there was no allegation of violation of any law as a result of the construction and that the directions pertaining to the roof and drains have been complied with. The Court recorded that the construction was carried out in accordance with the law and that the trial court's directions regarding the roof and the drain pipes have been complied with. The Court found the direction against opening of windows to be violative of the petitioner's rights and allowed the petition.
Overall, the High Court's ruling highlights the importance of balancing the rights of neighbors in such cases, where one neighbor's actions may potentially infringe upon the other's rights. It also emphasizes the need for courts to carefully consider the evidence and arguments presented before making a decision that impacts the fundamental rights of individuals.
