JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The husband of the appellant died on account of attack by wild animal in the reserved forest area. The writ petitioner-appellant claimed compensation under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) (Orissa) Rules, 1974. When no such compensation was paid, the appellant filed the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 24319 of 2012 praying for a direction to the respondents for payment of compensation under the aforesaid Rules, 1974 (wrongly mentioned in the prayer as Wildlife (Protection) (Orissa) Amendment Rules 2011). The writ petition having been dismissed vide order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.01.2016, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim for payment of compensation was made under the Rules, 1974 whereas the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, considered the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and hence the said order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the Single Judge is liable to be quashed. 3. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate has pointed out that under Section 27 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, it is an offence for any person to go inside the reserved forest area for any purpose, including removal of any forest produce. 4. The admitted facts of the case are that the husband of the appellant had gone into the reserved forest area for collecting mushroom, when he was attacked by wild animal and had succumbed to the injuries. The appellant claims that under Rule 45-AA of the Rules, 1974, compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakh is to be paid in case of death being caused by attack of the wild animal. 5. The Parliament has enacted an Act, to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country, called “ The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to “1972 Act”). Section 64 of the 1972 Act states about the power of the State Government to make Rules. As per sub-section(1) of Section 64, the State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions of 1972 Act in respect of matters which do not fall within the purview of Section 63. Section 64 of the 1972 Act states about the power of the State Government to make Rules. As per sub-section(1) of Section 64, the State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions of 1972 Act in respect of matters which do not fall within the purview of Section 63. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 64 of the 1972 Act, the State Government has framed the Rules called “The Wild Life (Protection)(Orissa) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to “1974 Rules”). Chapter-VAA has been substituted by incorporating Rule 45-AA to 45-JJ. Rule 45-AA and Rule 45-DD being relevant are extracted hereunder: “45-AA. Compassionate payment on account of Human Kills-In case of death of human beings caused by attack of Tiger, Leopard, Elephant, Crocodile, Sloth Bear, Indian Wolf locally called as ‘Ram Siala’, Boar, Gaur and Wild Dogs within a forest area or within a belt of five kilometers from the limits thereof compassionate payment of Rupees one lakh shall be made 45-DD. Exception in certain cases – Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 45-AA, 45-BB, and 45-CC, no compassionate payment shall be made under the said rules: (i) for any case of death or injury caused a reserve forest, sanctuary, National Park, Game Reserve or inside a closed area if the entry of the human being thereto was not legally authorized: (ii) for any case of death or injury caused during the period when the human being was engaged in an illegal activity punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Orissa Forest Act, 1981, the Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder: (iii) for any case of death of cattle caused inside a reserved forest, Sanctuary, National Park, Game Reserve or inside a closed area” 6. The appellant claims compensation in view of the provisions contained in Rule 45-AA but Rule 45-DD of 1974 Rules provides for exception in certain cases. Sub-rule(1) of Rule 45-DD specifies that no compassionate payment shall be made under the rules, in case of death or injury caused in the reserved forest area, if the entry of the human being thereto was not legally authorized. It is not the case of the appellant that her husband was legally permitted to go inside the forest area for collection of mushroom. It is not the case of the appellant that her husband was legally permitted to go inside the forest area for collection of mushroom. The husband of the appellant had entered into the reserved forest area at his own risk for which he was legally not permitted and as such, the case of the appellant would not be covered under the provisions of Rule 45-AA and would be squarely covered by the exception Clause (i) of Rule 45-DD of 1974 Rules. 7. The State legislature has enacted an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to protection and management of forests in the State called “The Orissa Forest Act, 1972”. Section 27 of the said Act states about offences. The husband of the appellant having admittedly entered into the reserved forest area for the purpose of removal of forest goods, which is not legally authorized, is liable for commission of offence punishable under the said provisions of the Act. 8. On perusal of the provisions referred to above, it appears that the language of the provisions of the Act read with the Rules are very plain and simple. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. M/s. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 376 , the apex Court held that cardinal rule of construction of statute is to read the statute literally, that is, by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. The said principle has be reiterated in Shri Ram Daya Ram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR, 1961 SC 674, Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. D.D. Bhargava, AIR, 1968 SC 247, Mohammad Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, AIR 1997 SC 1165 , Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission, AIR 2003 SC 317 , State of Rajasthan v. Babu Ram, AIR 2007 SC 2018 , State of Haryana v. Suresh, AIR 2007 SC 2245 . 9. Ltd. v. D.D. Bhargava, AIR, 1968 SC 247, Mohammad Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, AIR 1997 SC 1165 , Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission, AIR 2003 SC 317 , State of Rajasthan v. Babu Ram, AIR 2007 SC 2018 , State of Haryana v. Suresh, AIR 2007 SC 2245 . 9. There is no ambiguity in the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to above and giving a plain meaning to the same it appears that the husband of the appellant having violated the provisions of the Act and Rules by entering into the reserved forest area, where his death was caused by the wild animal, for the purpose of collecting forest produce, it would not entitle the appellant to claim compensation, particularly when exception has been given under Rule 45-DD of the 1974 Rules that no compensation is to be paid in case of death or injury caused inside reserved forest area. 10. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim made by the appellant for grant of compensation due to the death of her husband has no merit. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.