kochi state government is bound to provide compensation for loss to property due to attack by wild animals even if the claimant is not able to prove negligence by the government the high court has heldthe ruling was given by a single bench of the court after considering an appeal rsa no 13412012 filed by the government challenging pathanamthitta district courts order upholding a munsiff courts order to pay compensation for loss of property in an attack by wild animalsnegligence on the part of the state government or its officers need not be proven by the person claiming compensation as the principle of strict liability is applicable in the case of attack by wild animals the court held strict liability is the legal principle by which persons carrying on ultrahazardous activities are bound to bear all risks associated with such activity and proof of negligence is not required to prove their liability for damagesthere is no quarrel that in the case of attack by wild animals the liability on the part of the state and its officers is based on the doctrine of strict liability the court said in the judgmentit was contended by the government that the state or its officers have no control over the wild animals in reserve forest and strict liability cannot be fastened on the governmentrejecting the governments argument the court held that strict liability is squarely applicable in the case of loss to property due to attack by wild animals reserve forests are no doubt the property of the state the state has been protecting wildlife as per sections 9 and 11 of the wild life protection act 1972 nobody is permitted to carry out hunting of wild animals even for selfdefence killing of wild animals is permitted only in case of attack on persons and not on their properties therefore it is the duty of the state to see that the properties of persons should be protected from the attack of wild animals the judgment statedit is the duty of the government to ensure that wild animals do not trespass into human habitation or agricultural properties of other persons the court saidin addition to the principle of strict liability the principle of res ipsa loquitur mere occurrence of some type of accidents is sufficient to imply negligence is also applicable in the case of loss of property by attack of wild animals the bench heldbefore the munsiff court v v george of mylapra in pathanamthitta had alleged that barks of 40 rubber trees in his property adjacent to a reserve forest were destroyed by wild animals and arecanut trees were uprooted government had claimed no negligence can be attributed to it disagreeing with the government the court said the government has no case that the petitioner removed the bark of the rubber trees himself or that he was keeping any wild animals in the property