Responsa for Bava Batra 45:11

הרי הוא בחזקתו: והא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אין חזקה לנזקין רב מרי אמר בקוטרא רב זביד אמר בבית הכסא:

[to have them removed] in his favour, but this reason would not apply here [to the pigeon cote]. And if I had only the statement here, I would say that the reason is because, having only an individual to deal with, the owner obtained his consent, or that the other waived his right in his favour, but in the case of the public, who is there to consent and who is there to allow? Hence both statements are required. HE HAS A RIGHT TO KEEP IT. But has not R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha that there is no legal title to things which cause damage? — R. Mari replied that this applies to such a thing as smoke; R. Zebid, to such a thing as a privy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 115. n. 1. But a pigeon cote is in a different category. ');">¹⁷</span>

Teshuvot Maharam