व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

250 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. XV 9-18 / M. p. 186 L10-p. 187 L10]
Kātyāyana says :
He who defiles with filth a tank a garden or holy water should be fined
the first amercement after making him remove the filth
Yājñavalkya (II 155) says
For destroying boundary, for encroaching beyond the boundary and for
usurping a field the fines (respectively) are the lowest, the highest the
middling.
Manu (VIII 264) says
One who usurps by intimidation a house a tank, a garden or a
field should be fined 500 (panas) but the fine is two hundred if he did it
through ignorance.
Kātyāyana says
The fruits and flowers of trees growing on the boundary between two
fields should be declared as joint between the owners of the fields.
Kātyāyana says
But where the branches of trees growing in one man's field are spread
over another's field he should be considered as the owner in whose field
the (branches) stand spread out.¹
Yājñavalkya (II 157) says
When a man without informing the owner of a field makes a water
-course in that field the owner (of the field in which the setu is made)
is entitled to the profit arising therefrom or in his absence the king ²
The same author (Yāj. II 156) says
A dike that produces benefit should not be forbidden because it causes
some slight injury as also a well which occupies little space but has abun-
dant water (should not be prohibited) because it deprives another of some
land.
Na niṣedhyaḥ (should not be prohibited) has to be understood
(after kūpaḥ)
Nārada (p 158 v 17) also says :
(The erection of a) dike in the middle of another man's field is not
forbidden if it confers great benefit while the loss is trifling large in-
crease (of crops) is desirable even if there be (slight) loss (of land)
Nārada (p 159 v 20) says
If a man were to repair (start afresh) a dike erected in former times

1. Kātyāyana draws a distinction between jātāḥ and saṁsthitāḥ. Therefore it is
   proper to understand after saṁsthitāḥ in the fourth quarter the word śākhāḥ. Mandlik
   (p. 136) translates in whose field the trees stand But this is not correct. The reference
   is to the fruits and flowers growing on such branches.
2. Setu does not mean bridge here, but a dike or watercourse. A setu is of two
   kinds, one kheya (which is dug into the ground) and the other is bandhya (which prevents
   the access of water) Vide Nārada p. 158 v 18. The purport of the verse is that a setu
   should not be made in another's land without his permission or without giving him some
   consideration.
   P 225 (text) 7 P 226 (text)