The High Court · 2025

... RESPONDENTS'APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS Petition under Section order 41 Rule 27 of CpC p'r"yirg that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tie High court may be pleased to pass order/orders to receive the documents filed here;ith (as per the separate list) by way of additional evidence and make them as Rs and Ag in the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : SRt G TIRUPATHI REDDY, cp FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS,SENIOR COUNSEL The Court delivered the following: Judgment 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT. ..IUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.19Z8 of2Ot8 JUDGMENT: 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 Iiled a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with his possession and enjo-vment of the schedule property measuring Ac.14.lO guntas in Sy.No.135 of ilrdr"r"* village, Patancheru Mandal stating that his father, late Ghouse Mohd. oosman, was the owner of extensive lands in sy.Nos.135 to ls4, 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 2 sKS'J A.S.No.1978 of 2O18 a i ^i '\l\ 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 2OO3 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 transterred 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 \ \ a 3 sKS,J A.S.Ito.1978 of 2Ot8 prohibited, that the kunta was necessary to protect the interests of ayacutdars, and that the Government had a dufy 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.l was examined and Ex.Al to A4 are marked. DW.1 was examined and Exs.Bl and 84 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. The trial court, on a consideration of the pleadings, oral evidence and exhibits, found that the plaintifds chim 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 I , i i E h 4 sKs,J A.S.No.1978 of 2O18 i '.1 private kunta forming part of the plaintiffs 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. l'he trial Court further held that althoutgh 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 t[re principle laid down by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadul, holding that once the nature of a private tank or kunta was irreversibly changed and convertecl 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 plaintifl's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property including Komati Kunta. Aggrieved by '(zooo (7) scJ) \ \ - rr; e' 5 sKS,J A.S.I{o.1978 of 2O18 the said judgment and decree, the appe,ants ,iled the present appeal suit.

6. Heard Sri G. Tirupathi Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of the apperants as well as Sri Vedula srinivas, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7 ' Learned Government pleader for the appelrants submitted that the judgment of the trial court was contrary to the facts, evidence, and settled principles of raw 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 "rit ri. bare injunction, without seeking a declaration of title, was not maintainable, particularry when the rand in question was shikam rand 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 6 sKs,J A.S.No.1978 of 2O18 a._ I -.1 tank, known as Komati Kunta, was supplying water to ayacutdar:s 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 tanl< 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 discherrging their statutory. duties of maintaining it and that the judgment and decree were being misused, as under its cover, the J respondent was demolishing the tank, sluice, u'eir bund and other structures constructed by the Governme:nt, 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 thr: trial Court by allowing this Appeal Suit. \ \ t': 7 SKS,J A.S.No.1978 of 2()lE

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 liled 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 "rrd "t.ruersion orders in QOOS, 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 8 sKs,J A.S.No.1978 of 2O18 t.. -l No.136 u'as separate and covered by private lands, and though a bund was extended into it by the pattadar in the 195Os, 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 alt authentic records, fell only in Sy.No.135 to an extent of about one acre, and that the appellants' false claims ancl fabricated documents amounted to fraud and perjury, for which they were liable to punishment under law.. Therefor€', he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal suit. 1 1. Now the points that arise for considera,tion in the appeal are: i. Whether the trial Court was justified in granting a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff L 9 SKS,J A.S.No.1978 of 2O18 without considering the existence of ayacutdars and the claim of the Government that Komati Kunta was a Minor Irrigation Tank serving public purpose? ll. 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?

111. 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: .i

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 10 sKs,J A.S.No.1978 of 2Ol8 t- Komati Kunta is a private tank forming part of patta land inherited from his late father, which has been converted into non-agric:ultural land pursuant to orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 20O5, 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.OO and was inclu.ded in the official list of tanks transferred from Panchayal. Raj to the Irrigatiorr Department. The State argues that tlre tank was being used to irrigate agricultural lands, and thert under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Irrigation Ar:ts and the environnrental and conservation policies including Mission Kakatiya, the Government has an obligation to preserve water bodies and cannot allow their destruction or encroachment. L4. 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 \ \ , 1't sKs,J A.S.IIo.1978 of 20lE weight to the fact that Exs.Bl and 83, 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 bf 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 12 sKs,J A.S.No.197a of 2O18 t> '.1 when evidence of public utility and irrigation exists' Furthermore, it is settled law that when the title of the plaintiffisdisputed,orwherethenatureoftheproperty itserf 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, u'hile claiming ownership and seeking a perpetual injunction,failedtoproducethelayoutplanssanctionedby DTCP, n()r rdl,ere boundaries demarcated or plotted maps Iiled to show the exclusion of the tank area fronl 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 J and misrepresentation of thc physical features of the land, including extension of the bund into adjoining survey - numbers and mislabelling of irrigation structutres. These serious ;lllegations merited independent investigation and judicial scrutiny, which were not adequately addressed by the trial Court. h, \ t 13 sKs,J A.S.No.1978 of 2O18

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.l 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 3O.O8.2O17 passed in O.S.No.126 of 2015 by the learned Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. There shall be no order as to costs. ) Miscellaneous applications, if 'any pending, shall stand closed SD/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOTNT REGI$TRAR G SECT]ON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Judgre, Family Court - Cum - Vl{ Additional District and Sessions Judge 2. Two CCs to tre GP FOR APPEALS, High court for the state of Telangana at Medak, SangareddY Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED i1711012025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.1978 of 2018 -1" ri'i ,; t- S o IOE fl 3 * * 2 DRAFTS ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS l?-/ t 3385I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO: 1978 OF 2018 Betureen:

1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Government of Telangana State

2. The Principal Secretary (lrrigation), Secretariat, Government of Telangana State

3. The District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy 5. Executive Engineer (lrrigation), Sangareddy. ...Appellants/Respondents AND Dost M.Oosman, S/o.Mr.Ghouse Mohd.Oosman, Ordinarily a Resident of U.S lndian Address H.No Mettuguda, Secunderabad. Age 77 years, Occ Advocate, .12-7 -1 12, Ossman Villa ... CespondenUPlai ntiff Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 30.08.2017 made in O.S.No.126 ol 2015 on the file of the Coud of the Judge, Family Court - Cum - Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI G TIRUPATHI REDDY, GP FOR APPEALS for the Appellants and of SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Senior Advocate for the Respondent. 7 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1' That the Appeal suit be and the same is hereby allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2017 passed in o.s No. 126 of 2o15by the Family Court-cum-vtl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy:

2. That there shail be no order as to costs in this appear. SD/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To, 1 ' The Judge, Family Court - Cum - vlt Additional District anc] sessions Judge 2. Two CD Copies Medak, Sangareddy ADI(psl ,i i : l ! i I : I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 DECREE AS.No.1978 of 2018 ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS rl*-