Agricultural Damage Compensation Cannot Be Denied Citing Govt. Resolution Excluding Certain Wildlife Species: Bombay High Court
The Court held that Government Resolutions cannot override statutory provisions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and exclusion of certain species like parrots from compensation schemes cannot defeat entitlement where loss is caused by protected wild animals.
The Bombay High Court has held that a person entitled to compensation under statutory provisions cannot be denied such benefit merely because the concerned species is not included in a Government Resolution, and any such classification resulting in the denial of compensation would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking compensation for damage caused to pomegranate trees by parrots, where the State authorities had declined compensation on the ground that birds were not covered under the relevant Government Resolutions.
A Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P., while stating that “a persons, who is entitled for compensation, in the light of the statutory provisions, cannot be deprived from getting compensation merely because some specifies are not included in the Government Resolution”, further held that such a position “would be a breach of the equality principle in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution”.
Advocate A.A. Sambarey appeared for the petitioner, while Government Pleader D.V. Chauhan appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, an agriculturist, had cultivated approximately 800 pomegranate trees on his agricultural land situated adjacent to the Bore Wildlife Sanctuary.
It was his case that a substantial portion of the crop was destroyed by parrots, resulting in significant financial loss. A spot inspection conducted by the Taluka Agriculture Officer recorded that approximately 50–55% of the fruits were damaged, and the panchanama indicated that such damage could only have been caused by birds like parrots.
Despite this, the authorities refused to grant compensation because Government Resolutions governing compensation for crop damage by wild animals did not include birds like parrots within their scope.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the scheme of compensation under the Government Resolutions dated 02.07.2010, 05.09.2013 and 25.11.2013, noting that they provide compensation for damage caused by specified wild animals but do not expressly include birds like parrots.
It further analysed the statutory framework under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly Section 2(36), which defines “wild animal” to include species listed in Schedule I and Schedule II. The Court noted that parrots (parakeets) are included in Schedule II and therefore fall within the definition of wild animals.
The Court observed that the object of the compensation scheme, as reflected in the Government Resolutions, is to compensate farmers for losses caused by wild animals, and such an object cannot be defeated by restricting compensation to a narrow set of species.
Relying on its earlier decision in Vimal Haribhau Naik v. State of Maharashtra (2015), the Court reiterated that classification based on specific species must bear a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, failing which it would be arbitrary.
In this regard, the Court observed, “such classification… would bear no reasonable relation with the object sought to be achieved by the said Government Resolution.”
The Court further held that administrative instruments such as Government Resolutions are subordinate to statutory provisions and cannot override the mandate of the Wildlife Act. Placing reliance on the Chairman and Managing Director, FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira (2017), it reiterated that administrative circulars cannot be contrary to constitutional or statutory norms.
It also emphasised that under Section 39 of the Wildlife Act, wild animals are the property of the State, and citizens are expected to protect them. Consequently, it would be unjust to require farmers to bear losses caused by such animals without compensation.
The Court noted, “the law expects every citizen to be protector of the wild animals… it cannot be expected that they should suffer loss occasioned by them… otherwise… persons may resort to their own defences… which may entail harm to the wild animals.”
Thus, the Court held that exclusion of parrots from the Government Resolution cannot defeat the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation where loss due to such protected wild animals is established.
Conclusion
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for damage caused to pomegranate trees by parrots, notwithstanding their exclusion from the Government Resolution.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed that compensation be paid in terms of Part-II of the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2010 at the applicable rate for other fruit-bearing trees.
Cause Title: Mahadeo Jagannath Dekate v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:6387-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: A.A. Sambarey, Advocate
Respondents: D.V. Chauhan, Government Pleader (Senior Counsel); A.B. Badar, AGP
