HYDERABAD: Ruling that merely forwarding representations to the authorities concerned does not amount to an admission of liability or an assurance of payment, a bench of the Telangana High Court has set aside a single judge’s order directing payment of Rythu Bandhu (later renamed Rythu Bharosa) investment support to certain farmers for the 2019 Kharif and Rabi seasons.
The bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin allowed writ appeals filed by the state government, holding that the decision to implement the Rythu Bandhu scheme in a phased manner during the 2019-20 agricultural year, in view of financial constraints arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, was a matter of executive policy. The court said such a decision could not be interfered with in the absence of arbitrariness or a constitutional violation.
The dispute concerned farmers owning land in Thelagaram and Thallada villages of Thallada mandal in Khammam district. They had received Rythu Bandhu benefits for other seasons but were denied assistance for Kharif and Rabi 2019. The Single Judge had directed the State to release the amounts within eight weeks.
The bench found that a May 16, 2022 communication relied upon by the single judge had merely forwarded the farmers’ representations to the competent authority and did not amount to an admission of liability or an assurance of payment.
The bench noted that the state had placed material showing that assistance during the relevant period was prioritised for smaller landholders. During Kharif 2019, benefits were extended to farmers holding up to 10 acres, while the Rabi 2019 benefit was confined to holdings of up to six acres, subject to availability of funds.
The court recorded that 1,41,993 farmers were not extended benefits for Kharif 2019, involving Rs 850.82 crore, while 9,46,009 farmers were excluded for Rabi 2019, involving Rs 2,132.95 crore.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s principles in Reepak Kansal v Union of India, the bench held that courts could not compel the government through a writ of mandamus to make payments not provided for under its fiscal policy.
The bench also held that failure to consider the binding Supreme Court precedent constituted a relevant ground for review and set aside both the September 27, 2024 order and the January 9, 2026 order dismissing the state’s review petition.
Accordingly, both writ appeals were allowed.