Academic Query

If the railways prove it as 'act of God 'you may fail.If you prove it as negligence of the railways you may win the case.

Whenever Railways acquire the land, they acquire more land to avoid such kinds of exigencies and a minimum of 10 yards from the middle of the line is generally acquired.  Every owner has to take care of the likely accidents to his property and take adequate precautions to keep his inflammable material safe from fire accidents.   This was a thing of the past and hypothetical as such sparks and accidents are not likely to take place.

With due respect to the learned friends, when railway acquires any property to lay railway tracks it acquires the land absolutely, hence the query is unfructuous.

The author is in the habit of posting such hypothetical questions, just for the sake of "Time Pass".

As per your query, I would like to bring into your kind notice that they're are three essential elements that tends to constitute a tort.

These elemets are as follows:-
# A Wrongful act or omission,
# Duty imposed by the law.
# The act must give rise to legal or actual damage.

It should be of such a nature that it should give rise to a legal remedy in the form of an action for damages.

Now, before we carry on any further let me explain the concept of terms 'damange' and 'damages'.
The term “damages” is often confused with the term “damage”, while they may look similar, they have different meanings and are significantly distinct from each other, “damages” refers to the compensation sought for, while “damage” refers to actual loss or injury.

Now, the doctrine of Damnum sine injuria would imply. The doctrine of Damnum Sine Injuria refers or translates to damage without injury, here the party affected suffers damage which may also be physical but suffers no infringement of their legal rights.

In other words, it means the occurrence of an actual and substantial loss to a party without any infringement of a legal right.
Here no action lies in the hands of the plaintiff as there is no violation of a legal right.

But, here the situation totally depends upon circumstances whether the railroad company 'X' took proper legal permission from 'Y' for the construction.

In case of absence of any proper permission from the owner 'Y', the railroad company would be held liable for compensation of the loss incurred by 'X',. as the construction in itself is illegal and the railroad company could be sued for Trespass.

Thus, the compensation will be awarded by the took, by looking at the matter on whether the owner of the land 'Y' gave his consent for such a construction to railroad company 'X' or not.

However, if the consent is found missing, then 'Y' would be able to get the compensation for the loss incurred by him.

Hope It Helps

Regards
Kevin M. Paul