Mr. Karunesh Tandon and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates v. SH PRAVESH KUMAR ORS

LPA 266/2025 Page 1 of 8 $~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 266/2025, CM APPL. 23572/2025, CM APPL. 23573/2025 & CM APPL. 23574/2025 DELHI JAL BOARD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates versus SH PRAVESH KUMAR & ORS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate for R-1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 23.04.2025 CM APPL. 23573/2025 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 23574/2025 (Delay) 3. Cause shown is sufficient. The delay of 120 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. LPA 266/2025 and CM APPL. 23572/2025 (Stay) 5. The present letters patent appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 18.11.2024 (hereinafter referred as “impugned judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 10651/2016 titled as “Pravesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors.”, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay a lump sum amount of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2025 at 15:47:56 LPA 266/2025 Page 2 of 8 Rs.22,00,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of incident i.e., till the date of realization, as compensation to the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein on account of unfortunate death of their son, within a period of three months from passing of the impugned judgment. 6. The appellant states that the facts which lead up to filing the present appeal is that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased. On 20.07.2019, the deceased while chasing a cut-off kite, unfortunately slipped and fell down in a pit dug in the vacant land owned by the appellant and subsequently died due to the gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the officials of the appellant. Being aggrieved thereof, the respondent nos.1 and 2 preferred the underlying writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 10651/2016 titled as “Pravesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors.”, seeking compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of the tragic death of their son. 7. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions of the appellant and the respondents herein, allowed the underlying writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 18.11.2024. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the vacant land where the incident had allegedly occurred, though belonged to the appellant, was handed over to the Tata Power Delhi Distribution Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TPDDL”) vide a handing over report dated 14.01.2015. He submits that at the time of handing over, the land had a boundary wall and was free from any encroachment or breach. He states that the wall facing the colony was broken/punctured through which people gained access to the land belonging to the appellant. He emphasizes that the construction of the wall by the appellant was a measure undertaken by the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2025 at 15:47:56 LPA 266/2025 Page 3 of 8 appellant to ensure that no one has access to the land. He also submits that the breach in the wall giving access to the subject land cannot be said to be a negligent act on the part of the appellant, and therefore, anyone breaching the perimeter and gaining access to the subject land would be contributing to the negligence by their own act. Moreover, it is not disputed even by the respondents that the subject land was handed over to TPDDL. Given such circumstances and having regard to the fact that TPDDL was in possession of the land on the date of such occurrence, it would be TPDDL which would be responsible for any such unfortunate incident. Thus, the unfortunate death of the minor son of the respondents can be construed to be a direct consequence of negligence on the part of TPDDL and contributory negligence of the deceased. He also submits that although the learned Single Judge had noted part of the objections of the appellant in the impugned judgment, however, failed to give any cogent reasons to conclude that appellant is/was negligent. Since, no negligence has been established by the respondents/petitioners, learned Single Judge had erroneously directed the appellant to pay compensation which the appellant is not liable to pay. 9. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the appellant invites attention to the statement of the father of the deceased minor son as also the neighbour to submit that the respondents as also the residents of the colony were aware that the subject land is vacant for many years and the appellant had infact constructed a boundary wall which was broken and people were using the broken portion to access the vacant land including children. Based on this, learned counsel contends that the appellant could not be stated to be negligent since the respondents were already having knowledge of the vacant land as also the breach in the wall and did not themselves take any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2025 at 15:47:56 LPA 266/2025 Page 4 of 8 precautions to restrain or stop their children from accessing the land through the breaching wall. Thus, according to learned counsel the finding of negligence on the part of the appellant by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the evidence on record. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 11. We find from the examination of the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has examined the issue threadbare and has also taken into consideration the relevant material in the form of status report of the Delhi Police and such other materials to arrive at a finding and conclusion that the appellant was solely responsible for the negligence which led to the unfortunate demise of minor son of respondents. It would be apposite to extract the relevant portions of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced hereunder: “15. Respondent No.2, Delhi Police, has also filed the status report dated 14.02.2017 and relevant paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 are reproduced as under:- “5.Notice was served to Delhi Jal Board officials to fix the responsibility but the DJB replied that the land in question didn't belong to DJB as the land in question was given on rent to TPDDL for constructing a Power Station by Tata Power. After that a notice was served to the TPDDL asking the status of the land in question. In reply TPDDL told that the land in question does not lie in the area that was taken on leased from the DJB and the land in question actually belongs to DJB. 6. After that another notice was served to the DJB asking the actual owner of the land in question but DJB told that the. land in question belongs to TPDDL. After that demarcation of the land in question conducted and it was found that the land in question actually belongs to Delhi Jal Board. Later concerned DJB officer of land in question was arrested and released on bail as the offence is bailable. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2025 at 15:47:56 LPA 266/2025 Page 5 of 8 [Emphasis supplied] 7. It is humbly submitted that the investigation into the matter is still ongoing and sincere effort is being made to conclude the same at the earliest, so that the charge-sheet can be filled against the Officer responsible for the site.” 16. Another status report dated 19.12.2019 has been filed by the Delhi Police and the same reads as under:- “It is further submitted that during the course of investigation on 23.07.16 a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was issued to Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board, Mukherjee Nagar to provide the details of the in-charge/caretaker of the land in question. On dated 27.07.16 reply of the said notice was received and it was revealed that the said land in question i.e. DJB Land was handed over to Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd on 14.01.15 by Executive Engineer SDW-VIT N.S.T.P. Coronation Pillar, Delhi. During further course of investigation on 1.08.16 a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was served upon Sh. Anil Meena, HOG, EHV (Civil), TPDDL,2/9, Sub-station, sector-9, Delhi to provide the details of the charge/caretaker of the land in question. On 3.08.16 reply was received in compliance of notice dated 1.08.16, wherein it was mentioned that the said site was visited by the officials of the TPDDL and DJB on 2.08.16 and said land was demarcated by official of both departments. From the site visit was amply clear that the said land where incident took place, fall outside the land which has been allotted through TPDDL. The accident site at the distance of 30.07 meter away from the site allotted to TPDDL. It is further submitted that during the course of further investigation on 9.08.16, a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was again served to Asst. Commissioner (L&E) Delhi Jal Board to provide information (i)whether the said land in question belong to DJB or not (ii) Name & designation of person was care taker of the land ‘in question on 20.07.16. On 12.08.16 reply was received in compliance of notice dated9.08.16, wherein it was mentioned that DJB is the largest utility in the world which is providing facilities of water and sewer and its possession approx 4000 acres of land in all over Delhi. DJB has designated its Ex. Engineer as Estate Manager for looking after the land/installation etc. It is further submitted that during further course of investigations. Which fall under their jurisdiction. Some of the pieces of land are kept vacant by Delhi Jal Board for further plan for extension of Plant/SPS/SPP/WTP etc. In order to protect such land, DJB construct a boundary wall for the protection and same was done for the land in question at Burari, which was also kept vacant for the purpose of construction of STP. Whenever, any STP is constructed by DJB, it requires separate Sub- Station for its power This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2025 at 15:47:56 LPA 266/2025 Page 6 of 8 need and same has been done in the case also. From the above facts it is clear that the land in question is not a public land and no person of public is supposed to enter it. Regarding point No .(ii) that on 20.07.16 the concerned EE(SDW-VII) namely Sher Singh was the estate Manager of the said land inquestion.4.0n 18.08.16, Sher Singh the estate Manager of the said land was interrogated and arrested in the present case. During further course of investigation draft challan of the present case was prepared and a letter was sent to Asstt. Commissioner, L&D/DJB, Varunalay, Phase-II, Jhandewalan, Delhi for obtaining prosecution sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC. On 21.03.18 a letter from Sunil Kumar Singh, Suptd. Engineer (Vig) Delhi Jal Board, GNCT of Delhi was received vide letter No.DJB/Vig.(02/2018)/2059 dated 14.03.18 at PS-Burari, Delhi in which he stated that (regarding sanction for prosecution against Sh. Sher Singh, EE (E& M), DJB u/s 197 Cr.PC in the case FIR No. 351/16 dated 22.07.16 (ii) the case was placed before the Chief Executive Officer (DJB) being the Competent Authority, for his perusal and taking a view in the matter. CEO/DJB after going through the material on record i.e. the investigation report and other facts of the case, was, however not inclined to grant sanction for prosecution against Sh. Sher Singh the then EE/SDW-VII for the reasons recorded his order dated 9.03.18. It is further submitted that in view of the letter No. DJB/Vig.(02/2018)/2059 dated 14.03.18, a fresh letter for obtaining the requisite sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC was again sent to GNCT Delhi vide Daily No.6079/ACP/CL/ Dated 26.07.18, the said file was inadvertently misplaced due to transfer of previous I.Os. On 25.11.19 the request for obtaining the requisite sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC has again been sent to competent authority.” 12. It would also be relevant to reproduce the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge after having examined the material on record as also the submissions. Para 34 reads thus:- “34. The examination of the FIR and subsequent status reports filed by the Delhi Police reveals critical details surrounding the tragic drowning of the deceased. The charge-sheet and the investigation conducted by concerned officers also confirm that the deceased fell into a water-filled pit situated on land owned by DJB, which ultimately led to his death. In addition, the post-mortem report unequivocally establishes that the cause of death was ante-mortem drowning. The ownership of the land, where, the incident had occurred has also been corroborated by an inquiry conducted by the SDM. The SDM report indicates that, although the land This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2025 at 15:47:56 LPA 266/2025 Page 7 of 8 had been earmarked for construction by TPDDL, it remained under the primary ownership of DJB at the time of the incident. More importantly, the respondents have not contested or disputed the very occurrence of the incident. The SDM report also highlights that the land was initially enclosed by a boundary wall, however, this wall had been damaged, allowing access to local children of the area.” 13. Apart from the above, we note the learned Single Judge had relied upon the report of the SDM dated 14.10.2016 which also revealed that the Contractor, ostensibly of the TPDDL, had excavated a pit measuring 15x15x15 feet a few days before the incident. Learned Single Judge seems to have been convinced from a consideration of evidence and statements of the parties that there is a clear link between the ruined condition of the land and the unfortunate death of the minor son of the respondents. Finding that the appellant was the undisputed owner of the land where the unfortunate incident leading to the demise of the minor son had taken place, observed that the duty to maintain the said land was casted upon the appellant as the principal owner of the land even after handing over a part of the land to TPDDL. Learned Single Judge had also relied upon the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, District North to the Assistant Commissioner, appellant-DJB wherein reference was made to demarcation of the land and visit of the said land amply establish that the land where the incident took place, fell outside the parcel of land which had been allotted to TPDDL. Though, we are not commenting or making any observation on the veracity or probity of such statement or communication, however, are of the opinion that for the purposes of claiming compensation, the observations of the learned Single Judge on such documents and statements, in the facts of the case, are appropriate. 14. Though learned counsel had not addressed any submissions in respect This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2025 at 15:47:56 LPA 266/2025 Page 8 of 8 of the multiplicand or the quantum of compensation, we find that the learned Single Judge applied the appropriate parameters for calculating the compensation for the loss of minor son of the respondents aged around nine years at the time of the incident. 15. Learned counsel had contended that it ought to be TPDDL, which was in admitted possession of the land as on the date of incident, which must be made liable to pay the compensation since no negligence is attributable at all to the appellant. To the said submission, we may only observe that in case the appellant is of such view, it may have its appropriate remedies in law against TPDDL, with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. 16. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. We also find that the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order 18.11.2024 had granted three months for payment of the compensation as calculated failing which the respondents were held to be entitled for payment of additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum till payment. Apparently, the three months’ period has already expired and keeping in view the disturbing facts in the case, we direct the appellant to pay the calculated compensation with the interest at directed vide the impugned order within 10 days from date. Compliance affidavit shall be filed within 10 days thereafter. 17. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present appeal along with pending applications stand disposed of. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J APRIL 24, 2025/rl