8 years after boy drowned in pit, HC directs Jal Board to pay Rs 22 lakh for negligence

“It was the primary responsibility of the DJB to maintain safe conditions and take due precautions in and around the said land which it failed to do,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said, holding the DJB liable for lapses on its part that led to the death of Justin on July 20, 2016.

The high court also rejected the DJB’s claim that it had handed over a part of the land in question to Tata Power Delhi Distribution Private Ltd (TPDDL) for construction of a sub-station.

Justice Kaurav held the DJB accountable for negligence, citing its failure to maintain safety measures on the land where the accident occurred.

The child, along with several others, was flying kites on the rooftops of their houses when he spotted a cut-off kite and began chasing it. During the chase, he slipped and fell into a unsecured 15-foot water-filled pit on a vacant plot of land owned by the DJB. The pit had been dug for a project.

When he failed to return home, his mother, Rashmi, an assistant teacher at St Mother Teresa Public School in Burari, began searching for him. Unable to find him, she called her husband, Pravesh Kumar, a restaurant supervisor, for help.

During the search, children informed them that Justin had gone towards the vacant land while chasing the kite. His body was later recovered from the pit and taken to a local hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

An investigation revealed that the pit had been left unsecured despite its depth and location, leading to the fatal accident.

During a hearing on the matter, the DJB sought to shift the blame onto TPDDL, claiming that the land had been handed over to TPDDL in January 2015 and was under dispute. The DJB argued that the negligence could not be attributed to them due to this transfer.

The counsel for the DJB argued that when the land was handed over, it had a boundary wall and barricades, which were later broken by local residents to gain “illegal access” to the site. In contrast, the counsel for TPDDL argued that the land in question was situated 100 ft away from the area it had been officially transferred.

A report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) dated October 2016, which was submitted to the court, revealed that the land transferred to TPDDL was intended for the construction of a grid substation. The report also noted that the site had numerous precast pipes and was not, in fact, a vacant plot.

The court observed that while the SDM’s report indicated the land had initially been enclosed by a boundary wall, the wall had been damaged, thereby allowing local children to access the area.