Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & S.B. SHUKRE, JJ.
Vimal Haribhau Naik – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through its additional Principal Secretary (Forest), Department of Revenue & Forest & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2677 of 2013
Decided On : 05-05-2015
The object of the scheme of compensation formulated under this resolution, as seen from its introductory part, is to make good the loss of standing crops and the fruit bearing trees suffered by the farmers on account of raiding of crops and trees by the wild animals. When such an object has been expounded, it makes no sense to consider loss caused by only a few species of wild animals and ignore the loss caused by other species of wild animals for the purpose of payment of compensation to the affected persons. After all, wild animals specified in the Schedules to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are protected animals. Therefore, there is no rationale in classifying loss occasioned by farmers or orchard owners into two categories and allow payment of compensation for one category and disallow it for the other category. Such classification would bear no reasonable, relation with the object sought to be achieved by the G.R. dated 2.7.2010. Blue bull is admittedly a herbivorous animal just like the wild elephant and Indian bison and, therefore, blue bull cannot be held to be constituting a class apart from wild elephants and bison for the purposes of causing damage to fruit bearing trees and payment of compensation for the damage caused by it. It is obvious that G.R. dated 2.7.2010 insofar as it relates to payment of compensation for loss caused to fruit bearing trees, commits breach of equality principle and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The G.R. dated 2.7.2010 is, therefore, bad in law to the extent it makes an unreasonable classification.
Constitution of India - Article 51-A(g) The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Rate of compensation Determination of. - Where orange trees belonging to petitioner was damaged by wild animal, petitioner was awarded compensation in terms of Government Resolution dated 2.7.2010, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per tree. The compensation payable to the petitioner would be in terms of Part-B of the Government Resolution dated 2.7.2010 and the rate of the compensation would be of the category - "other fruit bearing trees" as it does not specifically refer to orange trees. It is not in dispute that 100 orange trees of the petitioner have been damaged by ran-rohe or blue-bulls and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to receive compensation for the said 100 orange trees Rs. 200/- per tree. The subsequent G.R. dated 5.9.2013 provides for compensation for other fruit bearing trees @ Rs. 250/- per tree. However, this rate would not be applicable to the present case as the incident in question was of the year 2012, much before issuance of the said resolution.
S.B. Shukre, J.
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader and learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. By this petition, the petitioner has sought redressal of her grievance that she has been treated differentially by denying payment of compensation to her for the loss of her orange trees caused by crop raiding wild animals, namely ran-rohe or blue-bulls.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2010, she had planted 125 samplings of orange trees in her agricultural field bearing survey No.424 situated at mouza Mandvai, taluka Kalmeshwar, district Nagpur. The petitioner had nurtured these trees with great care and those trees had shown a healthy growth by April, 2012. According to the petitioner the orange trees would have blossomed about three years thereafter. The petitioner had invested amount of about Rs.40,000/- for planting and nurturing the trees. During the night intervening the dates of 7th and 8th April, 2012, there was, however, an unfortunate incident wherein a herd of blue-bulls descended upon the orange plantation and browsed the tender leaves, quivered and broke their branches thereby substantially destroying the plantation. The investment of the petitioner thus went waste and also the prospect of earning good profit about three years after the year 2012 became dim.
5. The petitioner made complaint to respondent No.4 on 09/4/2012 and claimed compensation in terms of Government Resolution dated 02/7/2010. The petitioner was asked to resubmit the application together with all the necessary documents. The petitioner complied with the direction on 25/4/2012 by applying afresh for grant of compensation together with requisite documents. A panchanama of the destruction of orange trees was drawn on 03/5/2012 by respondent No.4. The panchanama noted damage to 100 orange trees out of 125 trees and recommended payment of compensation of Rs.8,000/- @ Rs.80 per tree. A check list as required by G. R. dated 02/7/2010 in respect of the assessment of damage made in the panchanama was also prepared and finally payment of compensation of Rs.6,000/- was recommended. Accordingly, respondent No.4 sent his report together with the entire record on 18/6/2012 to respondent No.3 for taking of necessary action in the matter. On 06/8/2012, respondent No.3 rejected the proposal on the ground that there was no provision in the Government Resolution dated 02/7/2010 for payment of compensation for the damage caused to fruit bearing trees by such wild animals as blue-bulls or wild-boars.
6. The petitioner, though disappointed, pursued the matter with higher authorities but could get no response from them. In a communication dated 29/12/2012 addressed to Personal Secretary, Minister of Forests, in response to query raised by Hon'ble Minister, it was informed by the respondents that since there was no provision in the G. R. dated 02/7/2010 for payment of compensation for the loss caused to fruit bearing trees by such wild animals as blue-bulls, deers, wild-boars, etc., payment of compensation in the instant case could not be allowed. It was also informed that because of such lacuna, a proposal for making provision for payment of compensation in such cases had been sent by the Forest Department to the Ministry. It was further informed that compensation in the instant case could be allowed only after receipt of the modified Government Resolution. Having been left with no option, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court for justice.
7. We have heard Shri Kunal Nalamwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and also Special Counsel for the Forest Department.
8. Shri Nalamwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the G.R. dated 02/7/2010, which makes no provision for payment of compensation for the loss caused to orange trees, an important
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
