JUDGMENT : K. SUJANA, J. 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2017 passed in O.S.No.126 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, the present Appeal Suit is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the schedule property measuring Ac.14.10 guntas in Sy.No.135 of Rudraram village, Patancheru Mandal stating that his father, late Ghouse Mohd. Oosman, was the owner of extensive lands in Sy.Nos.135 to 154, including Komati Kunta situated in Sy.No.135, which had been dug by the previous pattadar and purchased along with the land in 1950. After the death of his father, the plaintiff and his family succeeded the property and declared their holdings under land ceiling proceedings, wherein no surplus land was declared. He asserted that Komati Kunta was a private kunta forming part of their patta land, which was earlier used for agriculture and cattle but had become polluted due to industrial influence. Consequently, the family decided to convert the land for non-agricultural purposes, obtained permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, and a layout was sanctioned in 2003 for development of plots including the kunta area. The grievance of the plaintiff was that, in October 2015, revenue and irrigation officials attempted to treat Komati Kunta as a Government tank and tried to fix the full tank level under Mission Kakatiya, ignoring his objections and without furnishing any authority to show control over the land. He therefore apprehended interference with his possession and filed the present suit. 3. The defence of the Government and its officers was that Komati Kunta was identified as a water source and included in the list of irrigation tanks transferred from Panchayat Raj to the Irrigation Department, with about Ac.23-27 ayacut being irrigated under it. They contended that under law, construction in full tank level area was prohibited, that the kunta was necessary to protect the interests of ayacutdars, and that the Government had a duty to safeguard water bodies. They therefore objected to the plaintiff and the developer from proceeding with constructions and urged that no injunction could be granted. 4. They contended that under law, construction in full tank level area was prohibited, that the kunta was necessary to protect the interests of ayacutdars, and that the Government had a duty to safeguard water bodies. They therefore objected to the plaintiff and the developer from proceeding with constructions and urged that no injunction could be granted. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed two issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. DW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B4 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 5. The trial Court, on a consideration of the pleadings, oral evidence and exhibits, found that the plaintiff’s claim was supported by revenue records and proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer permitting conversion of the entire land, including Komati Kunta, from agricultural to non-agricultural use and also noticed that the layout plan had been approved and plotting work was going on. Further, D.W.1 (Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department) admitted in cross-examination that Komati Kunta was a private kunta forming part of the plaintiff’s patta land, that once land was converted into non-agricultural use the irrigation department had no control, and that no objection had been raised at the time of conversion or sanction of layout. The trial Court further held that although Komati Kunta had earlier been shown in the irrigation department’s list of tanks, such entries did not confer any right over private property. The trial Court also relied on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2006) 7 SCJ , holding that once the nature of a private tank or kunta was irreversibly changed and converted to other use, the Government could not insist on restoring it as a water body. Since the defendants neither claimed title nor sought possession by counterclaim, the Court concluded that their attempt to fix full tank level amounted to unlawful interference. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit and granted perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property including Komati Kunta. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants filed the present appeal suit. 6. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit and granted perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property including Komati Kunta. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants filed the present appeal suit. 6. Heard Sri G. Tirupathi Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. Learned Government Pleader for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the trial Court was contrary to the facts, evidence, and settled principles of law and that the livelihood of more than 20 ayacutdars, who depended on the Minor Irrigation Tank, was put at grave risk, yet the trial Court decreed the suit for injunction without considering this aspect. He further submitted that a suit for bare injunction, without seeking a declaration of title, was not maintainable, particularly when the land in question was Shikam land forming part of the catchment area and that the trial Court failed to consider documentary evidence showing the construction and maintenance of the Minor Irrigation Tank by the authorities and the fact that the said tank, known as Komati Kunta, was supplying water to ayacutdars cultivating more than 20 acres of land. 8. Learned Government Pleader contended that the non- consideration of these vital aspects, caused serious and irreparable loss, and the injunction granted was being misused by the plaintiff to demolish the tank and also contended that the plaintiff was not in possession of the entire extent of land claimed, and hence the relief of perpetual injunction itself was unjustified. He pointed out that under the provisions of the Irrigation Act, no injunction could have been granted against a Minor Irrigation Source so as to restrain the authorities from discharging their statutory duties of maintaining it and that the judgment and decree were being misused, as under its cover, the respondent was demolishing the tank, sluice, weir bund and other structures constructed by the Government, thereby causing irreparable loss not only to the State but also to third parties dependent on the water source. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court by allowing this Appeal Suit. 9. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court by allowing this Appeal Suit. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the appellants stating that the affidavit filed by the appellants in support of receiving documents like HMDA maps and photographs was beyond their pleadings and the appellants failed to explain why such documents were not produced during the trial in O.S. No.126 of 2015. He pointed out that the affidavit was almost a replica of an earlier I.A, except for one contradictory statement that Komati Kunta was not a private kunta, whereas in the suit proceedings the appellants themselves, through D.W.1, admitted that it was a private kunta. He submitted that Komati Kunta was outside the purview of FTL as the entire land was converted into non-agricultural land nearly two decades ago, with DTCP sanction in 2003 and conversion orders in 2005, owing to severe industrial pollution. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the appellants committed perjury by giving contradictory statements regarding 23 acres of ayacut, fabricating records, and manipulating a pre- independent village map. He emphasized that Survey No.136 was separate and covered by private lands, and though a bund was extended into it by the pattadar in the 1950s, it was not part of Komati Kunta. He alleged that under Mission Kakatiya, soil was illegally removed from converted non-agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.135 and 136 and shown falsely as bund and ayacut. He argued that the photographs filed by the appellants were not of Komati Kunta in Sy.No.135 but of Sy.No.136, and that the appellants even manipulated village maps by erasing Telugu and Urdu notations to enlarge Komati Kunta fraudulently. He submitted that Komati Kunta, as per all authentic records, fell only in Sy.No.135 to an extent of about one acre, and that the appellants’ false claims and fabricated documents amounted to fraud and perjury, for which they were liable to punishment under law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal suit. 11. He submitted that Komati Kunta, as per all authentic records, fell only in Sy.No.135 to an extent of about one acre, and that the appellants’ false claims and fabricated documents amounted to fraud and perjury, for which they were liable to punishment under law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal suit. 11. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: i. Whether the trial Court was justified in granting a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff without considering the existence of ayacutdars and the claim of the Government that Komati Kunta was a Minor Irrigation Tank serving public purpose? ii. Whether a suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration of title was maintainable in respect of the disputed land, particularly when Komati Kunta was claimed as Shikam/irrigation land falling within the catchment area? iii. Whether the trial Court had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, including the allegations of fabrication of maps and the contradictory admissions regarding Komati Kunta, before decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff? Point Nos. i to iii: 12. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, at the outset, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff claims ownership over land in Sy.No.135 of Rudraram village, including an area locally known as Komati Kunta. The case of the plaintiff is premised on the assertion that Komati Kunta is a private tank forming part of patta land inherited from his late father, which has been converted into non-agricultural land pursuant to orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 2005, and that the land was developed into residential plots with due layout sanction in 2003. 13. However, it is the specific contention of the appellants that Komati Kunta is a Minor Irrigation Tank serving an ayacut of more than Ac.23.00 and was included in the official list of tanks transferred from Panchayat Raj to the Irrigation Department. The State argues that the tank was being used to irrigate agricultural lands, and that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Irrigation Acts and the environmental and conservation policies including Mission Kakatiya, the Government has an obligation to preserve water bodies and cannot allow their destruction or encroachment. 14. The State argues that the tank was being used to irrigate agricultural lands, and that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Irrigation Acts and the environmental and conservation policies including Mission Kakatiya, the Government has an obligation to preserve water bodies and cannot allow their destruction or encroachment. 14. While the trial Court relied upon the oral admission made by DW.1-Executive Engineer that Komati Kunta was a private tank and part of patta land, it failed to give due weight to the fact that Exs.B1 and B3, official communications and the G.O. pertaining to maintenance of minor irrigation tanks, demonstrated that Komati Kunta had been in the Government’s list of tanks under irrigation maintenance. Further, the trial Court did not appreciate that merely obtaining a conversion order for non- agricultural use or approval of layout does not extinguish the public character of a water body, particularly where the land in question is a Shikam land or catchment area, or where public rights such as irrigation exist. The permission for conversion explicitly stated that it would not confer or create title over the land. 15. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Susetha (cited supra) was wrongly applied by the trial Court. That judgment dealt with private tanks whose character had irreversibly changed due to urban development, whereas in the present case, the evidence on record indicates ongoing irrigation use, and a continued public interest in preserving the tank. The duty of the State to preserve ecological resources cannot be overridden solely based on non-agricultural conversion orders, especially when evidence of public utility and irrigation exists. Furthermore, it is settled law that when the title of the plaintiff is disputed, or where the nature of the property itself is under controversy, such as whether it is a private tank or a public irrigation source, a suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable. The plaintiff, while claiming ownership and seeking a perpetual injunction, failed to produce the layout plans sanctioned by DTCP, nor were boundaries demarcated or plotted maps filed to show the exclusion of the tank area from irrigation use. Contrarily, the defendants filed documents indicating government maintenance of the tank and the presence of ayacut. 16. The plaintiff, while claiming ownership and seeking a perpetual injunction, failed to produce the layout plans sanctioned by DTCP, nor were boundaries demarcated or plotted maps filed to show the exclusion of the tank area from irrigation use. Contrarily, the defendants filed documents indicating government maintenance of the tank and the presence of ayacut. 16. The Government also alleged manipulation of maps and misrepresentation of the physical features of the land, including extension of the bund into adjoining survey numbers and mislabelling of irrigation structures. These serious allegations merited independent investigation and judicial scrutiny, which were not adequately addressed by the trial Court. 17. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and gave undue importance to admissions made by DW.1 without reconciling them with the statutory obligations of the State, the documentary evidence on record, and the public interest involved. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, this Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2017 passed in O.S.No.126 of 2015 by the learned Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.