IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 35604 OF 2025

25.02.2026 Between:

Rishi Kanth Naresh Betha ….. Petitioner And The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer & another ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Heard Sri M. Hareesh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned counsel for Petitioner, Sri K. R. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1, Sri. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ch. Jaya Krishna, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

2. It is the case of Petitioner that he is the owner of H. No. 2-6-7/8, admeasuring 65.55 Sq. Yards or 54.34 Sq. Meters situated at Sikh Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, Telangana having inherited the same from his father Betha Mallesh, who expired on 20.06.2015. The said Mallesh purchased the same from Ganta Sangeetha, wife of Ganta Rana Prakash Yadav by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 19.09.2002 bearing document No. 1425 of

2002 of the office of Sub Registrar, Bowenpally.

2.1. It is the further case of petitioner that in 1992, their predecessor-in-title viz. Ganta Sangeetha filed O.S. No. 1182 of 1992 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad against the father of the Respondent No. 2 by name Capt. Ramalingam, seeking perpetual injunction contending that he is interfering with the ingress and egress from the 15 feet public road. The father of Respondent No. 2, being the sole Defendant in the aforesaid suit, had taken an identical stand as taken by Respondent No. 2 in the present proceedings and contended that the passage in question was a private passage which was being used by them for cleaning the septic tank. The Civil Court had framed an issue as to whether the suit property is a public passage and plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2.2. It is further contended that civil Court had answered the issue in the affirmative and held as follows:

"... I therefore conclude on this issue the suit property is a public passage and the Plaintiff and the general public will have got right of access through this passage..."

2.3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in the above suit, A.S.No. 141 of 1997 was preferred by the father/predecessor-in-title of Respondent No. 2 namely Capt. Ramalingam before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Secunderabad and the same was also dismissed on 05.09.2003. Petitioner contended that despite the Order of injunction, Respondent No. 2 made constructions without any permission on the public passage/road. Petitioner therefore, is stated to have submitted representations to Respondent No. 1 on 22.02.2025, 03.05.2025 and 03.10.2025 complaining of the illegal acts of Respondent No. 2, who, in order to circumvent his illegal acts, filed Writ Petition No. 6231 of 2025 with a false and baseless prayer by suppressing all these facts, and is trying to re-agitate the issue which has already been settled by the civil Court.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner after reiterating the pleadings, took this Court to the Judgment in O.S. No. 1182 of 1992, in detail, by showing this Court the contention of the father/predecessor in title of Respondent No. 2 in the suit which is nearly identical to his case in the present proceedings, the issue framed by the Civil Court and the ultimate decision rendered by the Civil Court. He vociferously contended that once the civil Court has decided the issue and categorically held that the subject lane is a public lane and the said judgment has attained finality on the dismissal of the appeal against it, it is the statutory duty on the part of Respondent No. 1 to ensure that access to the said lane is not restricted in any manner and there is no construction made on the said public lane. Placing reliance on the photographs and the representations dated 20.02.2025, 03.03.2025 and 30.10.2025 given by Petitioner, it is contended