Bombay High Court Rules Farmers Cannot Be Denied Compensation for Crop Damage by Protected Wildlife

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court held that farmers cannot be denied compensation for crop damage merely because the concerned wildlife species is excluded from Government Resolutions. The ruling came in Mahadeo Jagannath Dekate v. State of Maharashtra & ors., where the petitioner sought compensation for damage to pomegranate trees caused by parrots.

The petitioner, an agriculturist, had cultivated around 800 pomegranate trees near the Bore Wildlife Sanctuary. A spot inspection by agricultural authorities confirmed that nearly 50–55% of the crop was destroyed by parrots. However, compensation was denied on the ground that birds were not included in the Government Resolutions governing such relief.

The Court examined the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly Section 2(36), which defines “wild animal” to include species listed in Schedule I and II. Noting that parrots fall under Schedule II, the Bench held that they are protected wild animals, and compensation cannot be denied on technical exclusions in executive policies.

Importantly, the Court ruled that such exclusion violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it creates arbitrary classification unrelated to the objective of compensating farmers. It further emphasized that Government Resolutions, being administrative in nature, cannot override statutory provisions or constitutional guarantees.

The Court also highlighted that wildlife is State property under Section 39, and farmers cannot be forced to bear losses caused by protected species. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the State was directed to grant compensation at applicable rates for fruit-bearing trees.