Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Vimal Haribhau Naik, an agriculturist, filed a writ petition seeking compensation for damage to her orange trees caused by bluebulls (ranrohe) in April 2012. She had planted 125 orange saplings in her agricultural field in 2010, investing about Rs. 40,000, and the trees were healthy by April 2012. On the night of 7th and 8th April 2012, a herd of bluebulls entered her field and browsed the tender leaves, quivered, and broke branches, substantially destroying the plantation. She complained to the Range Forest Officer on 9th April 2012, claiming compensation under Government Resolution dated 2nd July 2010. She was asked to resubmit the application with documents, which she did on 25th April 2012. However, her claim was rejected on the ground that the orange trees were not yet yielding and therefore not covered by the Government Resolution. The petitioner argued that the Government Resolution provides compensation for damage to crops by wild animals, including bluebulls, and does not distinguish between yielding and non-yielding crops. She also pointed out that other farmers in the same area had been compensated for similar damage to their orange trees. The respondents contended that the Government Resolution only covers damage to standing crops and not to trees that have not yet started yielding. The court examined the Government Resolution and found that it provides for compensation for damage to crops by wild animals, including bluebulls, and does not restrict compensation to only yielding crops. The court noted that the respondents had compensated other farmers for damage to orange trees, which showed discriminatory treatment. The court held that the denial of compensation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim afresh and pay compensation in accordance with the Government Resolution within a specified period. The writ petition was allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Wildlife Law - Compensation for Crop Damage - Government Resolution dated 02/7/2010 - Entitlement to Compensation - The petitioner's orange trees were damaged by bluebulls (ranrohe), a wild animal, and she claimed compensation under the Government Resolution dated 02/7/2010. The respondents denied compensation on the ground that the trees were not yet yielding. The court held that the Government Resolution does not restrict compensation to only yielding crops and that the denial was arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when other farmers had been compensated for similar damage. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim afresh and pay compensation in accordance with the Government Resolution. (Paras 1-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for damage to her orange trees caused by bluebulls (ranrohe) under the Government Resolution dated 02/7/2010, and whether the denial of compensation on the ground that the trees were not yet yielding is arbitrary and discriminatory
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's claim for compensation afresh and pay compensation in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 02/7/2010 within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner is entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.
Law Points
- Government Resolution dated 02/7/2010 provides for compensation for crop damage by wild animals
- including bluebulls (ranrohe)
- and the denial of compensation on the ground that the crop was not yet yielding is arbitrary and discriminatory
