HC Division Bench Sets Aside Order Directing 2019 Rythu Bandhu Payouts

A division bench of the Telangana High Court in Hyderabad has set aside a single judge’s order that had directed the state government to release Rythu Bandhu investment support to certain farmers from Khammam district for the Kharif and Rabi seasons of 2019.

A single judge had in September 2024 directed the state government to disburse the scheme's financial aid to the petitioner farmers. After the single judge subsequently dismissed the state government's review petition, the state approached the division bench with an appeal.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, held that a writ court cannot compel the government to make a payment that was not budgeted for. Consequently, the bench set aside both the September 2024 order directing payment and the subsequent order passed in the review petition.

The state government contended that during Kharif 2019, financial assistance was extended only to farmers holding land up to 10 acres. During Rabi 2019, the benefit was restricted to landholdings of up to six acres each, subject to fund availability. The government stated that because the petitioners owned land substantially exceeding those thresholds, they were not entitled to receive the support for those seasons. The state noted that the non-release was a policy decision taken amid financial constraints during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The bench noted that the state government had prioritised farmers with smaller landholdings during 2019-20 because of budgetary limits. In total, 1,41,993 farmers were not extended the benefit for Kharif 2019, involving Rs 850.82 crore, while 9,46,009 farmers were denied assistance for Rabi 2019, involving Rs 2,132.95 crore.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent that courts should ordinarily refrain from intervening in economic and fiscal policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law, the bench concluded that earlier administrative communication could not be construed as an admission of liability or an assurance to release the assistance.