Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
Shri Mahadeo S/o. Jagannath Dekate - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through its Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5639 of 2016
Decided On : 24-04-2026
For the Petitioner: Shri A.A. Sambarey, Counsel.
For the Respondents: Shri D.V. Chauhan, Government Pleader (Senior Counsel) assisted by Shri A.B. Badar, AGP.
Administrative compensation schemes for wildlife damage cannot arbitrarily exclude species defined as 'wild animals' under statutory law. Excluding specific protected species from such relief schemes violates the principle of equality, as administrative circulars must remain subservient to legislative intent and constitutional mandates.
Headnote:(A) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Section 2(36) - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to equality - Compensation for damage to crops and fruit-bearing trees by wild animals - Definition of 'wild animal' includes birds specified in Schedule-II - Exclusion of specific bird species from administrative compensation schemes while including other animals violates principles of equality - Statutory provisions prevail over administrative circulars and government resolutions. (Paras 6, 17, 22, 32, 36)
(B) Administrative Law - Policy decisions - Government Resolutions - Circulars are subservient to legislative mandates and cannot override statutory norms - Classification of animals for compensation must bear a reasonable nexus to the object of the legislation, which is to compensate farmers for losses caused by protected wildlife. (Paras 30, 31, 33, 35)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an agriculturist, suffered significant damage to an orchard of fruit-bearing trees caused by a flock of birds. A damage assessment conducted by local agricultural authorities confirmed that a substantial portion of the fruit was destroyed. The respondent authority rejected the claim for compensation, citing that the relevant government resolutions provided for financial assistance only for damage caused by specific quadruped animals, excluding birds from the ambit of the compensation scheme.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that though the administration failed to include birds within the notified list of destructive animals, the legislative definition under the Act clearly includes protected bird species as wild animals. Denying relief based on an omission in an administrative circular results in a classification that lacks reasonable relation to the purpose of the law—granting relief to farmers suffering losses from wildlife—and thereby breaches the principle of equality under the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for crop loss caused by wild birds not explicitly enumerated in government compensation resolutions, and whether such administrative exclusion is legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Administrative resolutions cannot override statutory definitions. When a law mandates the protection of certain species, the state cannot arbitrarily exclude damage caused by some of those species while compensating others, as it defeats the object of the relief scheme and violates constitutional equality principles.
Result: Writ petition allowed; petitioner held entitled to compensation as per the established graded rates for fruit-bearing trees.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of claim for crop damage compensation by wild animals. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. state's interpretation of grs vs. definition of wild animals. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. factual substantiation of loss and prevailing government resolutions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. reconciling statutory definitions with restricted administrative resolution scope. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. equity, statutory supremacy, and the right to compensation equality. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. final direction for compensation payment and order. (Para 40) |
JUDGMENT :
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking compensation for damages caused to fruit bearing trees of Pomegranates by Wild Animals (Birds) at field No.212, mouza Hingni, tahsil Selu, district Wardha.
3. The petitioner, who is agriculturist, contended he is owner of field bearing No.212, mouza Hingni, tahsil Selu, district Wardha along with other agricultural lands. Being an agriculturist, he has cultivated various seasonal crops in his agricultural field and he also planted Pomegranate trees in the above said field. 7/12 extract filed on record shows entry in respect of the Pomegranates. The Bore Wild Life Sanctuary covers area of 61.10 square meters, which includes 3237 Hectors of Reserved Forest, 2213 Hectors of Protected Forest and 660 Hectors of Unclassified Forest. The wild animals and birds are important faunas of this sanctuary. The field of the petitioner is adjacent to the said Wild Life Sanctuary. Under advice of Horticulture Expert, the petitioner has undertaken plantation of 800 trees of Pomegranates (special variety named as “Bhagwa”) in about 1.5 acres in his agricultural field. In the month of May 2016, damage was caused to Pomegranates fruits due to Parakeets (Parrots). Virtually, all the Pomegranates trees laden with fruits were ransacked by the said birds and loss was caused to the petitioner to the extent of Rs.20.00 lacs to Rs.25.00 lacs. Therefore, he immediately approached respondent No.1 to lodge a complaint. However, respondent No.4 refused to accept the report. The petitioner lodged an OnLine complaint and, thereafter, he approached to an Agricultural Officer through the Collector. He demanded a survey and consequent compensation from the said authority. On the advice of the Office of the District Collector, he approached the District Agriculture Officer. Therefore, the District Agriculture Officer directed the Taluka Agriculture Officer, Selu to visit the spot. Accordingly, he visited the spot and submitted his report. The Agriculture Officer has noted that 50 to 55% fruits were damaged by the said birds. Accordingly, panchanama was drawn. Despite these formalities completed by the Agriculture Officer, they have shown their inability to pay amount of compensation as there is no provision in Government Resolutions dated 2.7.2010, 5.9.2013, and 25.11.2013 if damage is caused by the birds like Parrots.
4. Thus, it is contention of the petitioner that though the Agriculture Officer has admitted that the damage is being caused by the wild birds, but in absence of express provisions, they are unable to pay any compensation and thereby claim of the petitioner was rejected.
Hence, this petition.
5. The present petition is strongly opposed by the State on the ground that there is no material to show that the damage is caused by the birds like Parrots. The State has admitted that the petitioner has made a representation in May 2016 alleging damage to the Pomegranate trees by flock of birds and inspection note dated 19.5.2016 recorded that about 50% to 55% fruits were found eaten. As per the contention of the State, the birds like Parrots are not covered under the Wild Animal and there is no express provision in the Government Notifications also to compensate the present petitioner in case of damage is
