Protected Schedule-II Birds Are Compensable Wild Animals for Crop and Fruit-Tree Damage
1. Introduction
In Shri Mahadeo s/o Jagannath Dekate v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, considered whether a farmer could be denied compensation merely because the damage to his pomegranate crop was caused by parrots/parakeets rather than by the specific animals named in Government Resolutions.
The petitioner, an agriculturist from Hingni, District Wardha, owned agricultural land adjoining the Bore Wildlife Sanctuary. He had planted around 800 pomegranate trees of the “Bhagwa” variety. In May 2016, a flock of parrots/parakeets allegedly damaged a substantial portion of the fruit. Though the Agriculture Officer’s inspection supported the claim of damage by birds, the State refused compensation on the ground that the relevant Government Resolutions did not expressly include parrots.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Court allowed the writ petition and held that parrots/parakeets, being included in Schedule-II of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, fall within the statutory definition of “wild animal” under Section 2(36). Therefore, compensation could not be denied merely because Government Resolutions did not expressly mention birds like parrots.
The Court declared that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for damage to pomegranate trees under the fruit-tree compensation component of the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2010. Compensation was awarded at Rs.200 per tree for 200 trees.
3. Analysis
A. Precedents Cited
This was the central precedent relied upon by the Court. In that case, compensation was considered for damage to orange trees caused by blue bulls. The Government Resolution had expressly provided compensation for fruit-tree damage only when caused by wild elephants or Indian bison. The Court in that case held that such a restrictive approach had no reasonable nexus with the object of compensating farmers for wildlife-caused loss.
Applying the same reasoning, the Court held that if the object of the compensation scheme is to protect farmers from losses caused by protected wildlife, it would be irrational to compensate damage by some wild species but exclude damage by other protected species such as parrots.
This case was cited by the petitioner. The present judgment records the reliance but does not separately extract or discuss its ratio in detail. Its relevance lay in supporting the broader line of Bombay High Court decisions favouring meaningful compensation to farmers affected by wildlife-related damage.
The State relied on this Supreme Court decision to argue that courts cannot supply omissions in legislation or policy. The principle cited was that where the legislature intentionally omits something, courts should not insert it under the guise of interpretation.
The High Court accepted the general principle but found it inapplicable in the present facts. The issue was not merely filling a gap in policy; rather, the Government Resolution had to be read consistently with the Wild Life Act and constitutional equality principles.
The State also relied on this case to argue that policy decisions are ordinarily within the Government’s domain and courts should not substitute their own views. The High Court acknowledged this settled position but held that administrative policy cannot override statutory provisions or create arbitrary exclusions.
The Court relied on this precedent for the principle that administrative circulars and Government Resolutions are subordinate to constitutional and statutory mandates. A Government Resolution cannot override the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, or defeat rights flowing from a lawful statutory framework.
B. Legal Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning proceeded on three connected foundations:
-
Proof of damage: The spot panchanama and Agriculture Officer’s report showed that 50–55% of fruits on inspected trees were damaged, with no signs of damage by larger animals. The loss was attributed to birds like parrots.
-
Statutory definition: Section 2(36) of the Wild Life Act defines “wild animal” to include animals specified in Schedule-I or Schedule-II and found wild in nature. Parrots/parakeets are included in Schedule-II and are therefore protected wild animals.
-
Purpose of compensation scheme: The object of the Government Resolutions was to compensate farmers for losses caused by wild animals and to reduce conflict between humans and wildlife. Excluding protected birds, despite their capacity to cause crop damage, would be arbitrary.
The Court also invoked Article 14 of the Constitution. It held that compensating farmers for damage caused by certain wild animals but denying compensation for damage caused by other protected wild animals, without rational justification, would violate the equality principle.
C. Impact of the Judgment
This decision is significant for human-wildlife conflict compensation claims. It clarifies that the absence of a species from a Government Resolution does not automatically defeat a compensation claim if the species is protected under the Wild Life Act and the damage is proved.
The judgment may influence future claims involving crop or fruit-tree damage by protected birds or other Schedule-I/Schedule-II species not expressly named in compensation circulars. It also signals that the State may need to revise its compensation schemes to align them with the Wild Life Act and constitutional equality norms.
At the same time, the judgment does not remove the need for proof. Claimants must still establish ownership, actual damage, causation, and compliance with procedural requirements such as timely reporting and inspection.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
-
Government Resolution: An administrative policy document issued by the Government. It cannot override a statute.
-
Schedule-II species: Wildlife species listed under Schedule-II of the Wild Life Act, receiving statutory protection.
-
Wild animal under Section 2(36): Any animal listed in Schedule-I or Schedule-II and found wild in nature.
-
Panchanama: A formal spot inspection record prepared by officials, often used as evidence of damage or facts observed on site.
-
Article 14: The constitutional guarantee of equality before law. State action cannot create arbitrary or irrational distinctions.
-
Casus omissus: A gap or omission in a legal text. Courts normally do not fill such gaps unless necessary to preserve statutory or constitutional consistency.
5. Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that protected birds such as parrots/parakeets cannot be excluded from wildlife compensation merely because they are not expressly named in Government Resolutions. Since they fall within the statutory definition of “wild animal” under the Wild Life Act, compensation schemes must be interpreted consistently with that statute and with Article 14.
The key takeaway is that administrative compensation schemes must serve their protective purpose fairly. Farmers who suffer proven damage from protected wildlife should not be left remediless due to narrow or incomplete wording in Government Resolutions.