Parrots Peck at Farmer's Dreams, But Bombay HC Ensures Compensation Bites Back

In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench has struck a blow for farmers battling wildlife woes. A Division Bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita P. Mehta declared that government policies excluding birds like parrots from crop damage compensation schemes violate Article 14's equality guarantee. The court ordered compensation for Shri Mahadeo s/o Jaganath Dekate, whose pomegranate orchard fell victim to a flock of parakeets near the Bore Wildlife Sanctuary.

From Lush Orchard to Bird Buffet: The Farmer's Fight Begins

Shri Mahadeo, a 70-year-old agriculturist from Hingni village in Wardha district, planted 800 premium 'Bhagwa' pomegranate trees on 1.5 acres of his field (Survey No. 212), adjacent to the sprawling Bore Wildlife Sanctuary—home to 61.10 sq km of reserved, protected, and unclassified forests teeming with fauna. In May 2016, parrots ransacked the fruit-laden trees, causing 50-55% damage estimated at Rs 20-25 lakhs.

Mahadeo promptly complained to forest authorities, but Deputy Conservator of Forests refused the report. He escalated via online portals and the District Collector, leading to a spot panchanama by the Taluka Agriculture Officer. The inspection confirmed bird-inflicted havoc—no uprooting or other animal traces—and noted fruits pecked clean. Yet, District Agriculture Officer cited lacking provisions in Government Resolutions (GRs) dated 2.7.2010, 5.9.2013, and 25.11.2013, denying payout. Frustrated, Mahadeo filed Writ Petition No. 5639/2016.

The core question: Do parrots, as Schedule II wild animals under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, entitle farmers to compensation despite GRs listing only mammals like wild boars, deer, blue bulls, bisons, monkeys, and elephants?

Petitioner's Plea: Wings Under Wildlife Law Demand Coverage

Mahadeo's counsel, Shri A.A. Sambarey, argued parakeets qualify as "wild animals" per Section 2(36), encompassing Schedule I/II species found wild. Spot panchanama unequivocally pinned blame on birds. GRs' preamble aims to aid farmers hit by wildlife raids on crops/trees—excluding birds defies this benevolent intent. He invoked prior Bombay HC rulings: Vimal Haribhau Naik (2015 SCC OnLine Bom 2025), compensating orange tree losses despite GR gaps, and Baburao Abaji Aglave (2012 (3) AIR Bom R 171).

State's Stand: GRs Draw the Line at Quadrupeds

Government Pleader Shri D.V. Chauhan countered: GRs explicitly enumerate compensable animals—wild boars, deer (sambhar/chital), blue bulls, bisons, monkeys/vanar, elephants—for crops/fruit trees, with graded payouts (e.g., Rs 200/tree for "other fruit trees"). Birds, though Schedule II, aren't listed; consistent omission over years signals deliberate policy. No statutory compensation framework under Wildlife Act; courts can't graft inclusions via analogy. Cited Supreme Court: Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP v. Parson Tools (1975) 4 SCC 22 (legislature's willful omission binds) and Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt of NCT Delhi (2006) 10 SCC 337 (policy deference).

Bridging Statutes and Schemes: Why Birds Fly into Equality's Nest

The court meticulously parsed facts: undisputed ownership, proximity to sanctuary, panchanama evidencing parrot pecking (800 trees aged 2.5-3 years, 60-70% fruiting, 50-55% damaged). GRs (2010 onward, updated 2015) detail payouts but omit birds, focusing quadrupeds for crops (up to Rs 25,000 cap) and elephants/bisons for trees (e.g., Rs 500/tree "other").

Yet, Justices prioritized Wildlife Act's Section 2(36) definition—parrots (Rose-ringed/Alexandrine) are protected Schedule II wild animals, state property under Section 39. GRs, mere administrative aids, can't override statute ( Chairman & MD, FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira , AIR 2017 SC 3271). Excluding birds lacks rational nexus to compensating wildlife-hit farmers, breaching Article 14 ( Vimal Naik redux: schemes must align with protective object, lest citizens harm animals in self-defense, frustrating conservation).

As LiveLaw (2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 217) aptly summarized, "such classification has no reasonable nexus... excluding certain species defeated this object."

Key Observations

"In view of definition given under Section 2(36) of the Wild Life Act, the parrots are covered under the definition of the Wild Animals."

"There is no rationale in saying that only the damage caused by few species would entitle the farmers to get compensation."

"It cannot be accepted that to allow payment of compensation to one category and disallow to other category. It would be breach of equality principle and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution."

"The law expects every citizen to be protector of the wild animals and, therefore, it cannot be expected that they should suffer loss occasioned by them because of wild animals. Otherwise, the very purpose of giving protection to the wild animals would be frustrated."

Victory for the Orchard: Rs 40,000 Payout and Broader Wings

The writ succeeded: "The writ petition is allowed... [Petitioner] is entitled to receive compensation... @ Rs. 200/- per tree for 200 trees" under GR 2.7.2010 Part B ("other fruit trees"), factoring 50-55% loss on fruiting trees. Rule absolute.

This sets precedent: wildlife compensation must embrace all statutorily protected species, safeguarding farmers near sanctuaries without diluting conservation. States may amend GRs, but equity now compels inclusion—parrots included.