HC directs State, Centre & insurance firms to compensate ryots within three months

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court's division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy, on Thursday heard the public interest litigation filed by Payal Shankar, politician and social activist from Shantinagar, Adilabad district, alleging inaction of the Central and State Governments and the insurance companies in not paying compensation to farmers of the district in spite of paying premiums in 2018-19 for Kharif and Rabi seasons.

The petitioner alleged that in spite of GO 500 dated November 23, 2019 the State Agriculture and Cooperation departments ignored the risk period as mentioned in both Pradhan mantriFasal Bima Yojana and the re-structured weather-based crop insurance scheme. In spite of giving representations, the concerned authorities are not responding, which is immoral and illegal, Shankar charged.

He requested the court to direct the Central and State governments to immediately release their respective share pertaining to the Kharif and Rabi 2018-19 for payment of crop insurance/ compensation to enrolled farmers pursuant to PMFBY and re-structured weather based crop insurance Shankar wanted the court to direct the respondents to take immediate action to pay 12 percent of interest for the delay in settlement of claims for the Kharif and Rabi 2018-19 as per the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY.

The respondents' counsels submitted that with the compliance of the earlier order of the High Court, they have paid all amounts to Adilabad district farmers who were affected in the Kharif and Rabi crop season of 2018-19. They informed that a few farmers wrongly mentioning their bank account numbers. This caused delay in the payment.

Chief Justice Bhuyan queried about the petitioner's occupation. Counsel for the petitioner Rachna informed the court that Shankar is a politician as well as social activist.

CJ Bhuyan irked by the occupation of petitioner as politician said the court made it clear that we are not here to entertain politicians who file public interest litigation. They will publicise that 'I have filed the case; because of me you got advantage. Moreover, they might mismanage the issue, the CJ opined.

After hearing the contentions of the counsels, the CJ bench directed the respondents to pay the entire amount within three months to the concerned farmers and disposed of the plea.

PIL to quash Central notification taking

control of irrigation projects in Telangana & AP

On Thursday the division bench, headed by Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy, heard the PIL filed by D Panduranga Reddy and two others of the Telangana Development Forum (TDF) challenging the Gazette Notification issued by the Centre taking control of all major and medium irrigation projects in Telangana and AP. It sought quashing of the notification.

The Registry of the High Court raised certain objections on the maintainability of the PIL. As per Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, neither the Supreme Court nor the High Courts shall adjudicate pleas pertaining to inter-State river water disputes.

J Ramchander Rao, Additional Advocate General, Telangana, informed the court that the issue raised in PIL is not an inter-State water dispute. He apprised the court about his advice to the State government to challenge the notification issued by the Centre before the Apex Court.

The petitioners in the PIL contended that the HC has jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue as the plea in the PIL is not an inter-State water dispute; the notification is illegal, arbitrary and draconian action as the Centre aims to usurp all powers of the State governments over all the irrigation projects. They contended that the Centre, taking advantage of the hostile circumstances prevailing between AP and Telangana on inter-State river projects' disputes, issued the impugned notification with malice to take control of all irrigation projects, which is nothing but infringing the fundamental rights of citizens of Telangana.

The counsel representing AP was not available for his arguments. Hearing in the case was adjourned to September 20.