Nagpur: In a key ruling with big implications for farmers, Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Friday ruled that compensation cannot be denied for crop damage caused by wild birds, even if such species are not explicitly listed in govt resolutions (GRs).“Just because the GR does not include birds like parrots, it would not be sufficient to deprive the petitioner from getting compensation,” a division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta held.The case arose from a petition filed by Wardha farmer, Mahadeo Dekate, who sought compensation after parrots destroyed a substantial portion of his pomegranate crop in 2016. He cultivated nearly 800 pomegranate trees over 1.5 acres near Bor wildlife sanctuary. A field inspection confirmed 50-55% of the fruit was damaged by parrots, leading to losses of ₹25 lakh.Despite the assessment, authorities declined compensation, citing absence of provisions covering birds like parrots in GRs issued in 2010 and 2013. These policies provide compensation only for damage caused by specified wild animals such as wild boar, deer, monkeys and elephants.The bench rejected the state’s position, observing that parrots are classified as “wild animals” under Schedule II of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Allowing the petition, the court directed the state to compensate Dekate for 200 pomegranate trees at the rate of ₹200 per tree.“The law expects every citizen to be a protector of wild animals. It cannot be expected to suffer losses because of these animals. Or the very purpose of giving protection to animals would be frustrated. The affected persons may resort to their own defences for protecting crops and fruit-bearing trees, which may entail harm to wild animals,” the bench said.The judges noted the objective of compensation schemes is to offset losses suffered by farmers due to wildlife. Limiting compensation to select species, while ignoring damage caused by other protected animals, would violate principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
