Limiting Compensation In Case Of Damage By Wild Animals To Only A Few Species Violates Article 14 : Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that restricting compensation for crop and tree damage only to certain specified wild animals, while excluding others such as birds, is violative of Article 14. The Court observed that such classification has no reasonable nexus with the object of compensating farmers for loss caused by wild animals.

A Division Bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita P. Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed by an agriculturist seeking compensation for damage caused to pomegranate trees by parrots. The petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that Government Resolutions governing compensation did not include birds like parrots within the list of animals for which compensation is payable.

The Court examined the factual record and noted that the petitioner's field was adjacent to a wildlife sanctuary and that the spot inspection confirmed that 50–55% of the fruit crop was damaged by parrots. It also noted that parrots are included in Schedule II of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and fall within the definition of “wild animals”.

The Court then considered the scheme of Government Resolutions which provided compensation only for damage caused by certain animals such as wild boar, deer, monkey, elephant and others, but excluded birds. It observed that the object of the scheme was to compensate farmers for loss caused by wild animals and that excluding certain species defeated this object.

The Court held that once birds like parrots are recognised as wild animals under the statute, there is no rational basis to deny compensation merely because they are not expressly included in the Government Resolutions. It observed that such exclusion creates an unreasonable classification and violates the principle of equality under Article 14.

“… 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… 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 Court observed.

The Court further held that Government Resolutions, being administrative in nature, cannot override statutory provisions or constitutional principles. It emphasised that the law expects every citizen to be a 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.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation and directed payment under the applicable category for fruit-bearing trees, treating the loss as compensable despite the absence of an express provision for birds.

Case Title: Shri Mahadeo vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 5639 of 2016]

Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 217

Click Here To Read/Download Order