In a significant judgment reinforcing the liability of the State for damage caused by protected wildlife, the Bombay High Court has ruled that parrots fall under the definition of “wild animals” under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Nagpur bench held that since wild animals are considered the property of the State, the government is duty-bound to compensate citizens for losses caused by them.
The court directed the Maharashtra government to pay compensation to a 70-year-old farmer whose pomegranate orchard was ravaged by wild parrots, dismissing the state’s argument that compensation is limited only to damage caused by specific large mammals like elephants or bison.
The petitioner, Mahadeo Dekate, a resident of Hingi village in Wardha district, owns a pomegranate orchard near a wildlife sanctuary. In May 2016, a large number of wild parrots from the nearby sanctuary attacked his farm, causing extensive damage to his fruit-bearing trees.
Following the incident, Dekate approached forest and agriculture department officials. While a joint inspection confirmed that approximately 50 percent of his crop was destroyed, the authorities refused to grant compensation. They claimed that existing Government Resolutions (GRs) did not provide for damages caused by birds. Dekate subsequently moved the High Court, seeking compensation for a loss he estimated at ₹20 lakh.
The State government opposed the petition, contending that compensation for crop damage is governed by specific Government Resolutions. According to the State, these resolutions only recognize damage caused by “wild animals” like elephants and bison for the purpose of reimbursement. They argued that birds like parrots were not covered under the compensation scheme.
The petitioner, however, relied on the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. He argued that the Act defines “wild animal” as any animal found wild in nature and specifically lists various species of parakeets (parrots) in its schedules. Therefore, the statutory definition must prevail over restrictive administrative resolutions.
A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta scrutinized the intersection of the Wild Life Act and the State’s compensation policies. The court noted that under the 1972 Act, wild animals are declared the property of the State.
The Bench observed that excluding certain species from compensation schemes is irrational and violates constitutional principles:
“There is no rationale in saying that only the damage caused by a few species would entitle farmers to get compensation. It would be a breach of the equality principle and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The court further emphasized that the objective of such compensation is to protect wildlife by preventing human-animal conflict. If farmers are left to suffer losses without recourse, they might resort to harming the animals to protect their livelihood.
“The law expects every citizen to be a protector of the wild animals and, therefore, it cannot be expected that they should suffer loss caused to them because of wild animals. Otherwise, the very purpose of protecting wild animals would be frustrated and affected persons may resort to their own defences to save their crops and fruit-bearing trees, which may harm wild animals.”
The court clarified that the Wild Life (Protection) Act, being a central legislation, prevails over any contradictory or restrictive Government Resolutions.
The Decision
Accepting the petitioner’s contention that parrots are indeed protected “wild animals” under the law, the High Court ordered the Maharashtra government to compensate the farmer. The court directed the State to pay ₹200 per tree for the damage caused to 200 trees in the orchard.
